Allahabad High Court
Radhey Shyam And Another vs Qamar Uddin on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Reserved on :17.2.2023
Delivered on :1.3.2023
Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 279 of 1996
Appellant :- Radhey Shyam And Another
Respondent :- Qamar Uddin
Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.11.1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / 1st Additional District Judge, Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 38 of 1992 (Radhey Shyam and others Vs. Qamar Uddin and others) awarding a sum of Rs.4,34,000/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.
2. Heard Mr. Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is of the year 1994, the National Insurance Co. Ltd./respondent has chosen not to appear in this case. This Court has no other option but to conduct the matter ex parte.
3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Rakesh Gupta in a road accident with the averments that on 13.9.1991, Rakesh Gupta-deceased was going towards railway station by his scooter, at that time bus bearing no. 81/1027 was coming from opposite side, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver. The aforesaid bus being driven in such a manner dashed deceased's scooter. In this accident, deceased sustained very serious injuries and died during the treatment in the S.N. Hospital, Firozabad.
4. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
5. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has attained finality as neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle has disputed the same even in oral submissions. The driver of the said vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident is also a decided fact. The vehicle being insured and there being no breach of policy condition is a finding, which has attained finality. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not added any amount towards future loss of income, which is bad on facts and has not granted any amount under the head of non pecuniary damages.
7. The income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.1,000/- per month as considered by learned Tribunal. The income of Rs.1,000/- cannot be found fault with in the year of accident i.e. 1991 of a person, who was a bachelor doing business in a small village, therefore, submission that the income should be considered at Rs.4,000/- cannot be accepted. The deceased will fall within the category of self employed and his age was in the age bracket of 21-25 years at the time of accident, hence, 40% of income shall be added towards future loss of income and 1/2 shall be deducted for personal expenses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)]. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 will be admissible in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)].
8. As far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards non pecuniary damages. In the light of Judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), parents/claimants shall be entitled to get Rs.30,000/- for loss of consortium in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another [2021 (4) TAC (SC)].
9. Hence, the total amount of compensation, in view of the above discussions, payable to the appellants-claimants is being computed herein below:
(i) Annual Income : Rs.12,000/- Per annum (Rs.1,000 X 12)
(ii) Percentage towards future prospects 40% : Rs. 4,800/-
(iii) Total income : Rs. 12,000/- + Rs.4,800/- = Rs. 16,800/-
(iv) Income after deduction 1/2 : Rs.16,800/- - Rs.8,400/- = Rs.8,400/-
(v) Multiplier applicable : 18
(vi) Loss of Dependency : Rs. 8,400/- X 18 = Rs.1,51,200/-
(vii) Amount under non pecuniary head : Rs. 30,000/-
(viii) Total compensation : Rs.1,51,200/- + Rs.30,000/- = Rs.1,81,200/-
10. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, the interest of 12% is maintained. However, from the date of filing of claim petition, on the enhanced amount interest would be 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till award and 6% thereafter till deposit of amount.
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.
12. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. The amount be paid to the claimants and no amount be kept in fixed deposit.
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. The said decision has also been reiterated by High Court Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No.4800 of 2021 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) decided on 5.4.2022.
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.
Order Date :- 01.3.2023
P.S.Parihar
(Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)
Further Order:-
Officers of Insurance Company are present in other matters for conciliation. After pronouncement of judgment, the amount is accepted but the rate of interest would be flat 6% per annum, which is agreed by the parties.
Order Date :- 01.3.2023
P.S.Parihar
(Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)
