Smt. Varsha And 2 Others vs Manager New India Assurance ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9224 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 889 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Varsha And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- Manager New India Assurance Company Limited Through D/M And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Devendra Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar,Achintya Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. None is present for the claimant.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 17.10.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Firozabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.102 of 2016 awarding a sum of Rs.4,96,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% 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 appellant that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income 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.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently objected the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant 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 counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month, which should be Rs.6,000 in the year of accident as he was doing furniture work. To which as the deceased was aged about 25 years, hence, 40% of the income will have to be added 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 1/4th as the deceased had five 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.6,000/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.2400/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 6,000 + 2400 = Rs.8,400/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/4th : Rs.6,300/-

v. Annual income : Rs.6,300 x 12 = Rs.75,600/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 18 (as the deceased was in the age bracket of 21-25 years)

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.75,600 x 18 = Rs.13,60,800/-

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

ix. Total compensation : Rs.14,30,800/-

8. 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."

9. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard finally.

10. 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.

11. 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 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.

12. 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 restic villagers.

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

Order Date :- 2.8.2021

Ram Murti