Sarla Devi And 4 Others vs Satendra Singh And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 11502 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1002 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Sarla Devi And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- Satendra Singh And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Narayan Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Mohd. Ashraf
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

(Per: Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal at the behest of the appellants has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 04.04.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitrakoot in MACP No.154/70/2016 (Smt. Sarla Devi & others Vs. Satendra Singh), whereby learned Tribunal awarded Rs.16,95,350/- with rate of interest 7% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed by the appellants for the death of Chandra Pal @ Chandan Singh Rathore, who died in road accident. It is averred in petition that on 16.10.2016 at about 7:30, the Deceased Chandra Pal was travelling in Tata Safari No. U.P.79 J 9596 from Maihar to Karvi Banda road via Chitrakoot. When he reached at the place of accident, the aforesaid vehicle was overturned due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle. In this accident, deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. As per averments the of petition, deceased was Assistant Teacher and his salary was Rs.30,958/- per month.

3. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.16,95,350/- compensation with rate of interest of 7% per annum but appellants were not happy with the award. Hence, this appeal.

4. Heard Shri Shiv Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Mohd. Ashraf, learned counsel for the respondent as well as perused the record.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on it. Hence, mainly the dispute between the parties is regarding the amount of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on the date of death of the deceased, he was serving as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Mahotara, Block- Naraini, District- Banda and was getting salary of Rs.30958/- per month. It is also submitted that on the date of accident, deceased was on probation and getting probation allowances of Rs.7300/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants emphatically submitted that learned Tribunal has considered the salary of the deceased as Rs.7,300/- per month only but the real fact is that after confirmation, deceased would have got Rs.30,958/- per month as salary. Hence, Tribunal should have calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of salary Rs.30,958 per month and not on the basis of Rs.7,300/-. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that Tribunal has not added any sum towards future loss of income. In addition to these arguments, last argument was made by learned counsel for the appellants that in non-pecuniary heads, Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the latest judgement of this Court Dr. Anoop Kumar Bhattacharya and another Vs. National Insurance Company Limited 2021 LawSuit (All) 1327.

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company objected the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that at the time of death, the deceased was on probation and during probation period his salary was Rs.7,300/- only as per his salary certificate. Learned counsel argued that the compensation was calculated by Tribunal on the basis of the amount of salary which the deceased was getting on the date of accident which is quite correct. Future salary cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel also submitted that appellants have wrongly argued that the Tribunal has not added any sum towards future loss of income because Tribunal has added 50% of income for future prospects. Lastly, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 while keeping in view the 30 years of age of the deceased, the multiplier of 16 should have been applied as per the direction of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298. Hence, there is no error or illegality in fixation of award and it does not call any interference by this Court.

8. The principles with regard to the determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicle Act are well settled. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimants for the loss suffered by them. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively but on the other hand, the compensation should also not be assessed so liberally so as to make it a bonanza for the claimant.

9. We have perused the record, which shows that the office of District Basic Education Officer, Banda has issued the appointment order of the deceased, which shows that before getting confirmed, he had to remain on probation as trainee teacher for six months (three months practical and three months theory). He was appointed on Rs.7,300/- per month fixed honorarium. Perusal of statement of A.P.W2- Raja Bhaiya has also clarified in his statement that at the time of death, the deceased was working as Trainee Assistant Teacher and during six months of training he was getting Rs.7,300/- per month. He would have been entitled to the salary of Rs.30,958/- per month after completion of the training period of six months. But, it is admitted fact that the deceased died before completing the training period. Hence, it cannot be disputed that on the date of death, the deceased was getting salary Rs.7,300/- per month and only this amount was relevant for computation of compensation, which is rightly done by the learned Tribunal. We are in full agreement with the finding of the learned Tribunal that Rs.7,300/- per month is the amount which is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of compensation.

10. Perusal of the record shows that learned Tribunal has added 50% of the income for future loss of the income. Hence, the argument of the appellants that no amount is added by Tribunal for future loss of income is against the record and we reject the same.

11. Learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 while it should have been 16 as per the Apex Court judgement Sarla Verma (Supra). It is correct that learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for consortium and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. In this way, Rs.20,000/- are awarded for non-pecuniary damages while it should have been Rs.70,000/- as per the directions of Hon'ble the Apex Court in National Insurance Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 but if Rs.50,000/- more are added in the head of non-pecuniary damages and multiplier of 16 is applied instead of 17 (as applied by Tribunal), final amount of compensation will come down to some extent. Hence, we consider it proper not to disturb the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and we maintain it.

12. 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."

13. 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.

14. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed and award is modified only to the extent of the rate of interest which shall be 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to the date of deposit. Award is modified to the extent as above accordingly.

15. Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today. The amount already deposited is to be deducted from the amount to be deposited.

16. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 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 :-17.12.2021
 
Ashutosh Pandey