Shyam Sunder And Others vs Ram Kisan And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 11465 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 925 of 2009
 

 
Appellant :- Shyam Sunder And Others
 
Respondent :- Ram Kisan And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A.K.Ojha
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

(Oral Judgment by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the claimants have challenged the judgment and order dated 29.11.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi (herein after referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MACP No.292 of 2007 (Shyam Sunder and others vs. Ram Kisan and another), awarding a sum of Rs.2,66,000/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

2. The claim petition was filed by the appellants, parents and brothers of the deceased before the Tribunal with the averments that on 9.5.2007 at about 9:45 p.m., the deceased Bhupendra was coming to his hostel with his brother at Panwadi Road, Rath, District-Hameerpur and when he reached in front of his hostel, a motorcycle bearing No.UP-C-1676 hit him from behind. Motorcycle was being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently. In this accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to the hospital. The deceased was 24 years of age and his monthly income was Rs.6,000/- by imparting tuitions and coaching.

3. Heard Shri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the judgment of the Tribunal.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The insurance company has not challenged the liability on it. The issue of negligence has attained finality. Now the only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased was unmarried boy of 24 years age. He is in the profession of imparting tuitions and coaching by which his monthly income was Rs.6,000/-, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the aforesaid facts and assessed his monthly income only at Rs.3,000/-. It is emphatically submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was having a very bright future as he was well-educated, but the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of future income. It is next submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, which is on lower side. Moreover, no amount is awarded in other heads of non-pecuniary damages, such as loss of estate and loss of filial consortium. Rate of interest is awarded oly 6%, which is also on lower side. No other point in calculating the compensation is disputed by the appellants.

6. It is admitted fact that the deceased was 24 years of age at the time of accident. He was educated person. It is alleged that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by imparting tuitions. Keeping in view the fact that the age of the deceased was 24 years and he was educated and the accident had taken place in the year 2007, we fix his monthly income as Rs.6,000/- per month, namely Rs.72,000/- per annum.

7. The Tribunal has not added any percentage of amount towards future loss of income, which is, in our opinion, grave error. Since, the deceased will fall within the category of self-employed and his age was 24 years at the time of accident, 40% shall be added towards future prospects as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)]. Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in Munna Lal Jain vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma [2015 (3) TAC 1 (SC)] that if the deceased was unmarried, 1/2 shall be deducted for his personal expenses. In this case, Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that multiplier will be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. Therefore, keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 will be applied in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)]. As far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, which is on very lower-side. In the light of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), claimants shall be entitled to get Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. Rs.40,000/- x 2 = Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium is granted in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another [2021 (4) TAC (SC)] .

8. Hence, the total compensation, in view of the above discussions, payable to the appellants-claimants is being recalculated herein below:

i.

Annual Income

Rs.6,000/- x 12

Rs.72,000/-

ii.

Percentage towards Future-Prospects (40%)

Rs.72,000/- x 40%

Rs.28,800/-

iii.

Total Income

Rs.72,000/- + Rs.28,800/-

Rs.1,00,800/-

iv.

Income after deduction of 1/2

Rs.1,08,000/- - Rs.50,400/-

Rs.50,400/-

v.

Multiplier applicable

vi.

Loss of dependency

Rs.50,400/- x 18

Rs.9,07,200/-

vii.

Funeral Expenses

Rs.15,000/-

viii.

Loss of Estate

Rs.15,000/-

ix.

Filial Consortium

Rs.40,000/- x 2

Rs.80,000/-

x.

Total Compensation

Rs.10,17,200/-

9. 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."

10. Learned Tribunal has awarded rate of interest as 7% per annum but we are fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the light of the above judgment.

11. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 8 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. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [2007(2) GLH 291] and this High Court in 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 claimants 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) and in First Appeal From Order No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021 while disbursing the amount.

(Ajai Tyagi, J.)               (Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)
 

 
Order Date :- 13.12.2021
 
LN Tripathi