Smt. Mukesh Tyagi And Another vs Raman Deep Singh And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 11477 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 

 
Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1640 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Mukesh Tyagi And Another
 
Respondent :- Raman Deep Singh And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Deo Ojha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajeev 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 26.7.2019, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut (herein after referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MACP No.781 of 2017 (Mukesh Tyagi and another vs. Raman Deep Singh and others), awarding a sum of Rs.7,69,000/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

2. The claim petition was filed by the appellants, parents of the deceased before the Tribunal with the averments that on 6.10.2017 at about 5:00 p.m., the deceased (Saurav) was coming on a motorcycle with his father (appellant No.1) and when he reached near Bhooni Crossing, a truck bearing No.HR 58 B 5002, came rashly and negligently from the side of Shamli hit the motorcycle of the appellant No.1. In this accident, Saurav sustained grievous injuries and taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. The age of the deceased was 18 years and he was 3rd year student of Bachelor in Business Administration (BBA).

3. Heard Shri Satya Deo Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Rajeev Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.

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 deceased was third year student pursuing the course of BBA. He used to impart tuitions by which his income was Rs.10,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal has assessed his income only at Rs.4,500/- per month. It is next submitted by learned counsel that learned Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of estate. He has also disputed the rate of interest allowed by the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal has granted only 7% per annum rate of interest, which is on lower-side. No other point in calculating the compensation is disputed by the appellants.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that there is no proof of income of the deceased on record, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. It is vehemently objected by the counsel that Tribunal has awarded 50% of income towards future loss of income while as per the judgment of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)] 40% should have been added as the deceased was not a salaried person rather he was having no income. 7% rate of interest is just and proper, therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the award given by the Tribunal and it does not call any interference by this Court.

7. It is admitted fact that the deceased was 18 years of age at the time of accident. The accident had taken place in the year 2017. Although, it is objected by the counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company that appellants could not produce any evidence of imparting the tuitions by the deceased, but it is not disputed that deceased was a third-year student of the course BBA and was 18 years of age and accident had taken place in the year 2017. Hence, we fix his monthly income as Rs.6,000/- per month, namely Rs.72,000/- per annum.

8. 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 18 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.25,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. 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)] .

9. Hence, the total compensation, in view of the above discussions, payable to the appellants-claimants is being re-computed 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/-

10. 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."

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 :- 14.12.2021
 
LN Tripathi