Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sukh Devi And Others vs Shri Bichiter Singh And Another on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 74 of 1995
Appellant :- Smt. Sukh Devi And Others
Respondent :- Shri Bichiter Singh And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain,Y.K. Saxena
Counsel for Respondent :- K.L. Grover
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 11.10.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.18 of 1992 awarding a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation.
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 21.11.1991. The deceased-Shobharam Saini was 43 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.853/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 15, awarded Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses and has granted Rs.10,000/- under non pecuniary damages.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income, which is bad on facts. The deceased will fall within the category of self employed and his age was 43 years at the time of accident, 25% shall be added towards future loss of income and 1/3 shall be deducted for personal expenses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2014 (4) TAC 657 (SC). It is submitted that as the deceased was survived by five legal heirs, three minor children and widow, hence, the deduction should be 1/3rd. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the amount awarded under non-pecuniary heads is also on the lower side and is required to be enhanced.
6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the income which has been considered by the Tribunal is just and proper as there was no income proof. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that there can be no addition of amount as the accident is of the year 1991. It also submitted that deduction towards personal expenses is just and proper.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, income of the deceased, even in the year of accident can be considered to be at least Rs.853/- per month looking to self employed. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that non grant of future loss of income is just and proper cannot be countenanced as judgments 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, 25% should be added towards future loss of income. The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd as the deceased has left behind him five dependents. Multiplier of 14 and Rs.75,000/- granted towards medical expenses are just and proper. As far as amount under the head of non pecuniary damages are concerned, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/-.
8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:
i. Income: Rs.853/-per month (Rs.10,236/- per year)
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 25% namely Rs.2,559/-
iii. Total income : Rs.10,236 + 2,559 = Rs.12,795/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.8,530/-
v. Multiplier applicable : 14
vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.8,530 x 18 = Rs.1,19,420/-
vii. Medical Expenses : 75,000/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs. 70,000/-
ix. Total compensation : Rs.2,64,420/-
9. The interest would be 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the decision of claim petition is decided and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited.
10. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided.
Order Date :- 16.2.2023
Jitendra
