Sanjay Kumar Sharma And Another vs Murari Lal And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 11683 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 44			Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117268
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 316 of 1997
 

 
Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Sharma And Another
 
Respondent :- Murari Lal And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Shukl
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.K.Shukl learned counsel for respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgement and award dated 8.11.1996 passed by M.A.C.T/7th-Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in M.A.C. Case No. 206 of 1993. The accident is not in dispute. The liability fastened on the insurance company is not in dispute. The age of the deceased is not in dispute. The insurance company and the owner have not challenged the judgment. The oral objection is to the granting of interest at 12% granted by the tribunal. The only question which remains to be considered in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded is just compensation in view of the settled legal position of law.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are on 21.03.1993 deceased Raj Kumar Sharma was going to his village Pathauli by bicycle on his side from Agra. When he reached near village Baant Sucheta and near village Pathauli a metador coming from opposite side bearing no. U.P. 80A 9317 driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the bicycle of deceased as a result of which the deceased received grievous injuries. He had been rushed to the S.N. Hospital for treatment but the doctors declared him dead.

4. The deceased Raj Kumar Sharma on the date of accident i.e on 21.03.1993 was aged 30 years was a compounder working with a doctor who has left behind him his mother, father, widow, one son and two daughters. The tribunal has considered his income to be Rs. 1200/-p.m, deducted 1/3rd, granted multiplier of 16, added Rs. 10,000/- towards non pecuniary damages and granted interest at the rate of 12%.

5. It is submitted by Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs. 2500/-p.m and 40% of this be added to future loss of income and multiplier of 17 should be granted. It is submitted that 1/4th of the amount should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as the deceased was survived by four legal representatives. The rate of interest granted is just and proper.

6. Per contra, as against this, it is submitted by Sri A.K.Shukl, learned counsel for the respondents that in absence of any proof of income Rs. 2500/- p.m cannot be considered to be income of a compounder in the year of accident. It is further submitted that there is no question of granting future loss of income as law did not subscribe to the same and the multiplier granted is just and proper. According to learned counsel interest granted at 12% is exorbitantly granted. Further, it is submitted that the matter remained pending since 1997 till 2022 and only on 27.02.2023, a copy of the memo of appeal was given to the respondent and therefore in view of the judgement of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2021 SC 3301, it is submitted that interest under Section 171 of the M.V.Act should not be ordered for the said period where the insurance company was not at fault and the appellant's counsel was totally negligent in not even getting the matter listed on the board and getting notice issued till year 2023.

7. After hearing Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.K.Shukl learned counsel for the insurance company. The two claimants who are two in number they are proforma respondents though who were originally arrayed as claimants, who will also benefitted by this judgment.

8. The income of Rs. 1200/- p.m cannot be said to be on the lower side, the same is maintained, 40% of this monthly income would have to be added. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident hence multiplier of 17 as per the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, would be admissible. Rs. 50,000/- for non pecuniary damages.

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

i. Income : Rs.1200/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.480/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 1200 + 480 = Rs. 1680/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd : Rs. 1120/-

v. Annual loss : Rs. 1120 x 12 = Rs. 13,440/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 17

vii. Total loss : Rs. 13,440 x 17 = Rs. 2,28,480/-

xii. Amount under non-pecuniary head : Rs.50,000/-

xiii. Total compensation : 2,78,480/-

9. This takes this Court to the most interesting question of rate of interest as many matters are lying pending in this Court since 1992 without notices been issued, without matter being listed on board even once, is this failure on the part of the Registry to list the matters and/or on the part of the learned counsels, I do not want to delve into the same but the fact that this appeal has remain pending since 1997 without even notices been issued to the insurance company. Should insurance company be saddled with huge liability of the interest. Section 171 of the M.V. Act, 16988 stipulates as follows:-

"171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.--Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf."

10. The interest on the enhanced amount would be 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition as that would have been rapo rate in the year 1997. Thereafter, for the period for which it has remained pending even without notices being served a marginal rate of interest of 2% would be worked out on the total amount, thereafter, again it would be 7% from the date the insurance company was represented before this Court.

11. As the matter has remain pending for about 2 decades no amount shall be kept in fixed deposit. The minor children would have become major by now, the daughters might have been married they shall be summoned and the amount proportionate to their share would be paid by account payee cheque by the tribunal in view of the judgment of A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442.

12. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.

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 respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the additional amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest as directed above.

14. 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 (supra), the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Record be sent back to the tribunal.

19. This Court is thankful to Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.K.Shukl learned counsel for respondents for getting this old appeal disposed of.

Order Date :- 19.04.2023

PS