Allahabad High Court
Smt. Raj Bala Tyagi And Anr vs Mukesh Kuamr Sharma And Ors on 1 April, 2022
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 119 of 1998
Appellant :- Smt. Raj Bala Tyagi And Anr
Respondent :- Mukesh Kuamr Sharma And Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- H.N. Sharma,Vinod Sinha,Yogendra Pal Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the order/award dated 5.11.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/6th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No.3 of 1996 awarding a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% as compensation.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided by this Court is, the quantum of compensation awarded.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident and was serving as employee with Western Region Company. His income was considered by the Tribunal to be Rs.3,000/- per month which according to the counsel for the appellant is on the lower side and should be considered at least Rs.4,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which should be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050.
5. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the award does not require any interference as the date of accident is 25.10.1995 and the decision of the Tribunal is prior to the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and therefore the Tribunal has not committed any error in not granting the future loss of income.
6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the factual data. This Court finds that the accident occurred on 25.10.1995 causing death of Awanish Kumar Tripathi who was 25 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.36,000/- per year which according to this Court, is just and proper. To which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 21-25, 40% of the income will have to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court inPranay Sethi (Supra). The multiplier of 11 granted by the Tribunal will have to be enhanced to 18 as looking to the age of the deceased. In the year 1997-98, the principal enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas,1994 (2) SCC 176 would apply, the Tribunal did not award any amount under the head of future prospect which is bad.
7. The total compensation payable is recalculated and is computed herein below:
i. Annual Income Rs.36,000/-(Rs.3000/- per month)
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.14,400/-
iii. Total income : Rs.36,000 + Rs.14,400/- = Rs.50,400/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 half towards personal expenses : Rs.25,200/-
v. Multiplier applicable : 18
vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.25,200 x 18 = Rs.4,53,600/-/-
vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.50,000/-
viii. Total compensation : Rs.5,03,600/-
8. The submission of learned counsel for respondent that even in the year 1998, the repo rate was not 12%. The rate of interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the decision would be 9%. From 1998, the appeal has remained pending, the respondent counsel appeared for the first time in the year 2021 and, therefore, rate of interest would be 3% from the date of filing of appeal till the amount is deposited.
9. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
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 within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest as mentioned above. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
11. The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as the purpose of keeping compensation is to safeguard the interest of the claimants. As 10 years have elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R.
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 rustic villagers.
13. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagauri 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.
Order Date :- 1.4.2022/Mukesh
