Radhika Devi And Others vs Rajendra Prasad Daruka And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10525 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R. 
 
Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3830 of 2009
 
Appellant :- Radhika Devi And Others
 
Respondent :- Rajendra Prasad Daruka And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Sinha,Deepali Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants; Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents; and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 27.3.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.473 of 2004 awarding a sum of Rs.19,11,760/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which is required to be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement and learned counsel submitted the salary certificate of the deceased, which is shown the income of the deceased was Rs.35,758/- and after deduction income tax, income of the deceased was Rs.31,182/- per month. It is also submitted that as the deceased was survived by his wife, one son and three daughter and hence the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased as 1/4 and not 1/3. The multiplier has to be as per that of deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the following judgments of the Apex Court:

(i) Sunil Sharma and others v. Bachitar Singh and Others, (2011) 11 SCC 425.

(ii) Manasvi Jain v. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited and Others, (2014) 13 SCC 22.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently objected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 9.11.2003 causing death of Subedar Ram who was 48 years of age and left behind him, wife (now died), one son and two daughters. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.18,315/- per month. The deceased was a Senior Engineer in N.T.P.C. by profession. The tribunal has erred itself in not considering the income of the deceased and has deducted amount which he could not deduct holding that they were personal benefits to the deceased. All that could have been deducted would be the tax benefit and, therefore, we cannot concur with the tribunal as far as holding that the deceased was entitled to that the income was Rs.18,315/- per month. The income has to be considered Rs.31,000/-as the salary slip categorically showed the income of the deceased to his income categorically shows that it was Rs.35,758/- per month even if we deduct Rs.4,000/- as tax amount, Rs.31,000/- per month would be the income which would be admissible to the family. We are considering to be Rs.31,000/- per month (rounded figure) which we feel is just and proper. As per the judgements cited by Shri Sinha, the deductions made by the tribunal could not have been made. To which as the deceased was age bracket of 46-50 years, 30% of the income will have to be added as future prospects in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. As far as deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, it should be 1/4 as the deceased had four persons to feed.

7. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is computed herein below:

i. Income Rs.31,000/- p.m.

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 30% namely Rs.9,300/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 31000 + 9300 = Rs.40,300/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/4 : Rs.30,225/-

v. Annual income : Rs.30,225 x 12 = Rs.3,62,700/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 13(as the deceased was in the age bracket of 46-50 years)

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.3,62,700 x 13 = Rs.47,15,100/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.70,000/-

ix. Total compensation : Rs.47,85,100/-.

8. On depositing the amount in the Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers.

9. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291, total amount of interest, accrued on the principal amount of compensation is to be apportioned on financial year to financial year basis and if the interest payable to claimant for any financial year exceeds Rs.50,000/-, insurance company/owner is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year, registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant to withdraw the amount without producing the certificate from the concerned Income- Tax Authority. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this High Court in Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and another) while disbursing the amount.

10. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. The Tribunals in the State shall follow the direction of this Court as herein aforementioned as far as disbursement is concerned, it should look into the condition of the litigant and the pendency of the matter and not blindly apply the judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case.

11. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under :

"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court."

12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount along with additional amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.

13. As far as claimant No.1 is concerned, the widow has passed away and hence, the amount to be disbursed in equal proportion to legal representations.

14. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that the matter is disposed of.

Order Date :- 18.8.2021

A.N. Mishra