Allahabad High Court
Smt. Hiraniya And Others vs Ansar Husain And Others on 7 August, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158722
Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 378 of 1998
Appellant :- Smt. Hiraniya And Others
Respondent :- Ansar Husain And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Punit Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned Advocate appearing for Mr. Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order impugned. None has appeared for the respondents though notices were re-issued way back in the year 2020. Matter to proceed ex parte.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated19.12.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Additional District Judge, Banda (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.8/70 of1996 awarding a sum of Rs.1,82,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
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 incident is of the year 1995. The appellants are the widow and children of deceased Ram Bahari who succumbed to the accidental injuries when he was 42 years of age. He was an Aurvedic Doctor by profession. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.1500/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 15, added Rs.2000/- towards non pecuniary damages and that is how the Tribunal calculated the above compensation. The Tribunal awarded 10% rate of interest from the date of award till the date of satisfaction of the award.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the reasoning given by the Tribunal as far as grant of interest from the date of award is bad in the eye of law. In fact no reasoning given for that. It is submitted that normally the interest is granted from the date of filing of the claim petition. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that even in the year of accident an Aurvedic Doctor who had passed Vaidya Visharad examination can be safely stated to be earning at least Rs. 3000/- per month.
6. It is further submitted that there should be addition of 25% of income towards future loss of income 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 amount under non pecuniary heads should be granted in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court referred herein above.
7. The deceased was 42 years of age. He had done Vaidya Visharad from recognized university which was recognized by Indian Medical Council. The learned Tribunal, in the manner which cannot be fathomed, held that the certificate of passing of examination of Vaidya Visharad was there but there was no certificate for him to practice and, therefore, the Tribunal decided that his income can be considered to be that of a labourer and decided his income to be Rs.1500/- per month. The said finding is bad and looking to the profession of the deceased it can be said that he was earning Rs. 3000/- per month even in the year of accident. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that future loss of income should be granted, is 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), 25% should be added towards future loss of income. As far as deduction towards personal expenses and multiplier are concerned, the same is not being disputed. As far as amount under the head of non pecuniary damages are concerned, Rs.70,000/- is granted.
8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:
i. Income: Rs.3000/-per month namely Rs.36,000/- per year.
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 25% namely Rs.9000/-
iii. Total income : Rs.36,000 + 9000 = Rs.45,000/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.30,000/-
v. Multiplier applicable : 15
vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.30,000 x 15 = Rs.4,50,000/-
vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.70,000/-
viii. Total compensation : Rs.5,20,000/-
9. This takes this Court to the issue of interest. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 10% from the date of award till the date of realization. The reasoning given by Tribunal for non grant of interest as per the record is that the delay was caused by the claimants in producing the evidence. The judgment is of the year 1997 whereas the claim petition was filed in the year 1996. How the delay was caused is not understood when the matter was decided within a year.
10. Hence, the interest at the rate of 10% on the awarded interest is maintained but the same would be effective from the date of filing of the claim petition. The enhanced amount would carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of award and 4% thereafter till the amount is deposited as though enough time has been granted, none has appeared for the respondents.
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-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.
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 :- 7.8.2023
DKS
