Allahabad High Court
Smt. Saroj And Ors vs Smt. Asha Sharma And Ors on 25 April, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 48 of 1998
Appellant :- Smt. Saroj And Ors
Respondent :- Smt. Asha Sharma And Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Y.S. Bohra
Counsel for Respondent :- Aijaz Ahmad Khan,Anju Pandey
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Shri Y.S.Bohra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Aijaz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Smt.Anju Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and award dated 14.10.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge-IV, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. Case No.56 of 1996 awarding a sum of Rs.5,06,780/- 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 25.12.1995. The deceased-Umesh Malik was 35 years of age at the time of accident and was service-man. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,150/- per month, deducted Rs.1190/- towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 14, added Rs.9,500/- towards non-pecuniary damages and in all awarded Rs.5,06,780/-.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.4150/- per month, as the deceased was service-man. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not added any amount towards future loss of income. It is submitted that 50% should be granted towards future loss of income. It is further submitted that as the deceased had four mouth to feed namely widow, mother and two minor children, the deduction towards personal expenses should be at least 1/4th. It is further stated that the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident, hence, the multiplier applicable would be 16. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that amount granted under non-pecuniary head is also on the lower side and requires to be enhanced in view of the decisions cited herein below. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the on the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 & Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is lastly submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is also on the lower side and it should be as per the repo rate.
6. As against this, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that there can be no addition of future prospect as in the year of incident the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 was not available. It is lastly submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just. Rather, the matter has remained pending before this Court for no fault of the Insurance Company and the delay has been recently condone hence, even if this Court considers any enhancement, the Insurance Company may not be made liable to pay interest for that period.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the income of the deceased considered by the Tribunal is just and proper. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent future loss of income cannot be granted, is not countenanced as judgements of those days were related to grant of future loss of income may be by different mode of calculation. Hence, in view of the decisions in Gobald Motor Services Ltd. and another v. R.M.K. Velusamy, 1962 SCR (1) 929 and General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C Versus Susamma Thomas, 1994 SCC (2) 176 and in Pranay Sethi (Supra), 50% should be added towards future loss of income. The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd as the deceased had to feed four persons out of whom two were children. The deceased being 35 years of age, the multiplier applicable would be 16 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma (Supra).
8. As far as amount under non-pecuniary heads is concerned, the appellants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- plus 10% rise in every three years in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and, therefore, we round up the figure to Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
9. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:
i. Income per annum : Rs.4150/- x 12 = Rs.49,800/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 50% namely Rs.24,900/-
iii. Total income : Rs.49,800 + Rs. 24,900/- = Rs.74,700/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/3th towards personal expenses : Rs.49,800/-
v. Multiplier applicable : 16
vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.49,800 x 16 = Rs.7,96,800/-
vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/-
viii. Total compensation : Rs.8,96,800/-
10. As far as issue of interest is concerned, this Court is in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent and hold that the above amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of award and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited.
11. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
12. 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 shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest as directed above and disbursed to the claimant. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided.
Order Date :- 25.4.2023
LNTripathi
