Durga Pal Singh And Another vs U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 519 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 2
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2493 of 2016
 

 
Appellant :- Durga Pal Singh And Another
 
Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Nipun Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
 

 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

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

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgement and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Ghaziabad dated 30.04.2016 in MACP No.539 of 2013 Durga Pal Singh And Another Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (herein after referred to as UPSRTC), by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation Rs.4,74,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

2. Heard Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of UPSRTC.

3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants filed a motor accident claim petition for seeking compensation of their son Brijesh Kumar, who died in a road accident. As per averments in the petition on 04.03.2013, the brother of the deceased was waiting at T-point Rahul Vihar, Taj Highway for arrival of Brijesh Kumar (Deceased). The deceased was coming on his friend's motor-cycle bearing No.UP 14 BV 9250 after the duty from the company. As soon as he reached at T-point Rahul Vihar, a roadways bus of Eath Depot bearing No.UP 81 AF 2023, which was being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently, hit the aforesaid motorcycle from behind. In this accident both the riders got injured. Brijesh Kumar was declared brought dead in civil hospital. The appellants are parents of the deceased-Brijesh Kumar.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The UPSRTC has not challenged the judgement and award of the Tribunal nor it has challenged the liability to pay compensation. The issue of negligence has attained finality as no appeal or cross objections are filed by the UPSRTC. Hence, the only question remains to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded just compensation. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was working in a company, namely, Global Autotech Ltd. His salary was Rs.6,457/- per month which is well proved by the Manager of the company as PW-3. But the Tribunal held that the deceased was not permanent employee of the company and on this ground learned Tribunal did not consider the actual salary of the deceased and rather assumed his earning only Rs.3,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 which is against the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)] because the age of the deceased was 22 years, the multiplier should have been of 18. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, which are on very lower-side. With regard to the rate of interest, it is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded 7% per annum rate of interest which should be enhanced.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the UPSRTC vehemently objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants regarding the income of the deceased. It is submitted by learned counsel that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month because it is not proved that the deceased was a permanent employee. It is also submitted that there is no age proof of the deceased, hence, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17. It is further submitted that the amount under the head of non-pecuniary damages is properly granted. Hence, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgement which calls for any interference by this Court.

7. While considering the compensation the Tribunal has preferred the three steps calculation guidelines given by the Apex Court in Sarla Devi (supra). With regard to the income of the deceased learned Tribunal has not considered the income from salary. As per claim petition, the deceased was working in a company, namely, Global Autotech Ltd. and was getting salary near about Rs.7,000/- per month. The appellants have filed salary slip of the deceased which is well proved by PW-3 Vijay Singh Chauhan, who is H.R. Manager Legal in the aforesaid company. In his testimony, PW-3 has specifically deposed in examination-in-chief that the deceased was working in Tool-room department of the company and his salary was Rs.6457/- per month and in addition to the salary he was earning through overtime also. It is also deposed that he was likely to be promoted soon. This fact of future promotion is not rebutted by UPSRTC nor any denial suggestion is put to the witness in this regard. Hence, it is well proved on the record that the deceased was earning Rs.6,457/- per month as salary and income from overtime also. Yet the learned Tribunal held that deceased was not in permanent job and erroneously equated him to a labourer and considered his notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month only in the light of judgement of Apex Court in Laxmi Devi Vs. Mohd. Tabbar and others 2008 (12) SCC 165. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by learned Tribunal because the fact of the deceased being in service and his salary is well proved by PW-3. Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention that deceased was a graduate. We hold the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. No income tax is to be deducted from the salary of the deceased because his salary was not taxable.

8. The age of the deceased was below 40 years, hence in the light of the judgement in Sarla Verma (supra), the Tribunal has rightly added 50% for future loss of income. The learned Tribunal has rightly deducted ½ for personal expenses in accordance with the judgement of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma (2015) 6 SCC 347 because the deceased was unmarried. But we are not convinced with the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 while it should have been of 18 as the deceased was in the age bracket of 21-25.

9. Under non-pecuniary heads, learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, which are on very lower-side. The judgement of Apex Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)] has retrospective effect. Hence, the appellants shall be entitled to get Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. The appellants are father and mother of the deceased, they would be entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each.

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

i.

Annual Income

Rs.7,000/- x 12

Rs.84,000/-

ii.

Percentage towards Future-Prospects (50%)

Rs.84,000/- x 50%

Rs.42,000/-

iii.

Total Income

Rs.84,000/- + Rs.42,800/-

Rs.1,26,000/-

iv.

Income after deduction of 1/2

Rs.1,26,000/- - Rs.63,000/-

Rs.63,000/-

v.

Multiplier applicable

vi.

Loss of dependency

Rs.63,000/- x 18

Rs.11,34,000/-

vii.

Amount under Non-pecuniary Heads

Rs.1,10,000/-

ix.

Total Compensation

Rs.11,34,000/-+Rs.1,10,000/-

Rs.12,44,000/-

11. 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."

12. 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.

13. 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 UPSRTC 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.

14. 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.

12. The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Privae Ltd. vs. 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. Since long time has elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Bank Account of claimant(s) in a nationalized Bank without F.D.R.

(Ajai Tyagi, J.)              (Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)
 
Order Date :- 6.4.2022
 
Ashutosh Pandey