The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Pramila And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 23542 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


A.F.R.
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173536
 
 
 
Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1202 of 1999
 

 
Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
 
Respondent :- Smt.Pramila And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- No,P.K.Sinha,R.K.Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Sharve Singh
 
With
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1979 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Jhurai Lal And Others
 
Respondent :- Smt. Kamlesh Gandhi And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sharve Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar,Aarushi Khare
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

1. Heard Sri P.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sharve Singh, learned counsel for the respondents in F.A.F.O No. 1202 of 1999, Sri Sharve Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in F.A.F.O No. 1979 of 2021 and Ms Aarushi Khare, learned counsel for respondents.

2. These appeals, challenges the judgement and award dated 29.5.1999 passed by M.A.C.T/IVth-Additional District Judge, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. Case No. 234 of 1997. The accident is not in dispute. The only question which remains to be considered in these appeals 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 23.01.1997 deceased Chaggu Lal at about 3:00 p.m was taking his trolley towards Mahoba at the same time a truck bearing no. U.P. 15B 2657 driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the trolley of deceased as a result of which Chaggu Lal died on the spot.

4. The deceased Chaggu Lal was a trolley puller in a shop who has left behind him his father, widow, four sons and a daughter. The tribunal has considered his age between the age bracket of 30-35 years and considered his income to be Rs. 2700/-p.m, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, granted multiplier of 17, added Rs. 7000/- towards non pecuniary damages and granted interest at the rate of 12%.

5. It is submitted by Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants in F.A.F.O No. 1202 of 1999 that income considered by the tribunal is on the higher side and the rate of interest at 12% was not the rapo rate in the year 1999 as against this Sri Sharve Singh, learned counsel for the claimant's in F.A.F.O No. 1979 of 2021 submitted that no amount under the head of future loss of income has been calculated by the tribunal. It is vehemently submitted by Ms Aarushi Khare, learned counsel for the insurance company in F.A.F.O No. 1979 of 2021 that the amount awarded is just and proper rather the appellant of the insurance company for challenging the compensation awarded is likely to be allowed and therefore she adopts the submission of Sri P.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants in F.A.F.O No. 1202 of 1999.

6. As far as interest is concerned the appeal of the insurance company will have to be allowed. The rate of interest even in the year of accident namely in 1997 was 9% and not 12% and therefore the amount awarded would be recalculated with 9% for the date of filing of the writ petition till the decision of award.

7. The deceased was in the age bracket of 36 to 40 years which has been seriously disputed by Sri Sharve Singh, learned counsel that deceased had left behind his widow, four sons and a daughter and therefore it is submitted by Sri Sharve Singh, learned counsel that deduction onf 1/3rd for personal expenses should be 1/5th as per the judgment of Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 (SC) 5157. It is further submitted that under the head of non pecuniary damages only Rs. 7000/- has been which is less compared to the amount to be awarded. The tribunal could not have gone by the U.P. Motor Vehicles rules and awarded Rs. 7000/- as non-pecuniary damages.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased was a trolley puller in a shop, his income in the said place can be considered Rs. 27,00/- p.m. as decided by the tribunal, 40% of this monthly income would have to be added. The deceased was in the age bracket of 36-40 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. As far as the submission of Sri Sharve Singh, learned counsel that 1/5th should be deducted, this Court cannot accept the same as all the children would part one portion between them, hence, 1/3rd deducted for personal expenses is just and proper and Rs. 70,000/- for non pecuniary damages.

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

i. Income : Rs.2700/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.1080/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 2700 + 1080 = Rs. 3780/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd : Rs. 2520/-

v. Annual loss : Rs. 2520 x 12 = Rs. 30,240/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 17

vii. Total loss : Rs. 30,240 x 17 = Rs. 5,14,080/-

xii. Amount under non-pecuniary head : Rs.70,000/-

xiii. Total compensation : 5,84,080/-

10. The interest on the enhanced amount would be 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited but thereafter, for the period for which it has remained pending on the list without even the appeal been condoned, it is rightly pointed out by Sri. P.K.Sinha and Ms Aarushi Khare, learned counsels for the insurance company that interest would be slashed as per the judgment of Apex Court in Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2021 SC 3301, hence 4% on enhanced amount from the dated of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited.

11. No amount shall be kept in fixed deposit. The minor children would have become major by now, the daughter might have been married she 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 all the four learned counsels for getting this old appeal disposed of.

Order Date :- 28.08.2023

PS