Smt. Kamlesh vs Rajendra Kumar And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10213 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 962 of 1994
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Kamlesh
 
Respondent :- Rajendra Kumar And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Y.S. Bohra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar,Anubhav Sinha
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. 

1. Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for respondent - insurance company and perused the judgment and order impugned. None appears for owner.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and award dated 11.05.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No.29 of 1984 awarding a sum of Rs.85,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12%.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. The accident took place on 08.07.1984. The deceased was 27 years of age and was an agriculturist. Deceased-Nanak Chand who was 27 years of age left behind him, his widow and three minor children which fact is not in dispute. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.600/- per month, granted multiplier of 20 and that is how the Tribunal has calculated the total compensation to be Rs.85,000/-

5. Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the income of the deceased should be considered to be at least Rs.1,500/- per month. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not added any amount under the head of future loss of income which should be granted in view of decision in of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 20, which would be 17 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC).

6. As against this, Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company has contended that multiplier of 20 granted by Tribunal is exorbitant and it would suffice for non grant of amount under the head of non pecuniary loss and future loss of income. Learned counsel further submits that in the year of accident in the State of U.P., no future prospect was granted. Learned counsel further submits that even in the year of accident in 1984, the repo rate was not 12% and interest granted at the rate of 12 % is exorbitant.

7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the factual data. It is an admitted position of fact that the Insurance Company has accepted the award and has not challenged the same. This Court finds that the accident occurred on 08.07.1984 causing death of Nanak Chand who was 27 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.600/- per month which according to this Court, in the year of accident, would be at least Rs.900/- per month as he was farmer. To which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 26-30, 40% of the income will have to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court inPranay Sethi (Supra). Looking to the general trend even in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and another Vs. R.M.K Veluswami and other, 1962 SCR(1) 929, the addition of 40% can be granted and 1/3 deduction will have to be granted. The multiplier would be 17 to which looking to the pendency of the matter which has been pending here since more than 30 years. Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of non pecuniary damages would suffice for claimants.

8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:

i. Annual Income Rs.10,800/- ( Rs.900/- per month)

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.4,320/-

iii. Total income : Rs.10,800/- + Rs.4,320/- = Rs.15,120/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.10,080/-

v. Multiplier applicable : 17

vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.10,080 x 17 = Rs.1,71,360/-

vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/-

viii. Total compensation : Rs.2,71,360/-

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. 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 directed above. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.

11. 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.

12. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguri 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. The said decision has also been reiterated by High Court Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No.4800 of 2021 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) decided on 5.4.2022.

13. 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 judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case.

14. 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 long period has elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R.

15. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided.

Order Date :- 7.4.2023

A.N. Mishra