Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kamini Singh And Others vs New India Assurance Co. And Others on 5 April, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
[A.F.R.]
Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2740 of 2006
Appellant :- Smt. Kamini Singh And Others
Respondent :- New India Assurance Co. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shivendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Aditya Singh Parihar,Aditya Singh Parihar
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Nausad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned. None appears for owner.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 18.9.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No.375 of 2001 awarding a sum of Rs.6,20,800/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6%.
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 22.4.2001. The deceased was 40 years of age and was in service in U.P. Co-Operative Federation as Centre In-charge. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.7000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 11 and awarded Rs.5,000/- towards non pecuniary damages. The Tribunal has calculated the total compensation to be Rs.6,20,800/- payable to the legal representative.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the income of the deceased should be considered to be at least Rs.7974/- per month as per pay slip. The deductions made by Tribunal could not be considered as P.F. contribution cannot be deducted. 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. The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 has suggested guidelines for grant of future loss of income. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11. Though it is proved that the age of deceased was 40 years. The deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses is also bad, should be 1/4th as there were seven dependants of the deceased who was the sole breadwinner. The multiplier should be 15 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC).
6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded under non pecuniary damages is on the lower side and is required to be enhanced in view of the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be as per the repo rate prevailing in those days.
8. As against this, learned counsel for respondent- insurance company has contended that Tribunal has rightly not considered any amount under the head of future loss of income as it was not proved by claimants as to what would be increment in salary. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent- insurance company that he Tribunal has considered the multiplier of 11 as per the age of the deceased which is just and proper as it was the law prevailing in the day when the accident occurred. Learned counsel for the respondent has lastly contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of this Court.
9. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the accident is of the year 2001 whereas the judgment of the Tribunal is prior to the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and, therefore, non addition of future loss of income is just and proper.
10. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the factual data. This Court finds that the accident occurred on 22.4.2001 causing death of Bhanu Pratap Singh who was 40 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.7000/- per month which according to this Court, in the year of accident, would be at Rs.7974/- per month looking to his salary slip, therefore, the assessment of income to be Rs.7,000/- made by Tribunal is bad in view of the mandate of the Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.). The deceased was in the age bracket of 36-40, 50% of the income will have to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd as the deceased has left behind him seven dependents.
11. 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.
12. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:
i. Income: Rs.7974/-per month (Rs.95688 per year)
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 50% namely Rs.47844/-
iii. Total income : Rs.95688 + Rs.47844 = Rs.143532/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.95,688/-
v. Multiplier applicable : 15
vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.95,688 x 15 = Rs.14,35,320/-
vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/-
viii. Total compensation : Rs.15,35,320/-.
13. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned which is granted is 6%, 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."
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided.
Order Date :- 5.4.2023
Mukesh
