Allahabad High Court
Smt. Aruna Gupta vs Rajeshwar Singh Tyagi And Others on 20 March, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 65 of 2023
Appellant :- Smt. Aruna Gupta
Respondent :- Rajeshwar Singh Tyagi And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- M.P. Sarraf
Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri R.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant- widow and legal heir of the deceased and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 5.10.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Ist A.D.J., Aligarh, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 450 of 1997 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% as compensation.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the income of the deceased should be considered at least Rs. 8,000/- per month and that 40% should be added as future loss of income of the deceased in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105. It is further submitted that under non-pecuniary heads, the claimants are entitled to at least Rs.15,000/- should be awarded.
5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that for a Junior Engineer the income cannot be Rs. 8,000/- even in the year of accident.
6. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 1,43,500/-. Though the deceased was a Junior Engineer and his income was Rs. 8,000/- but the Tribunal has illegally considered it to Rs. 2,000/-. The parties have conciliated and has decided that the income would be Rs. 8,000/- per month. Even if we go by the recent decision and not the decisions of the earlier here, roughly 40% can be added to be income of the deceased. As he was 44 years of age, multiplier of 14 would apply plus Rs. 15,000/- as non-pecuniary damages as the accident took place on 15.7.1997 at 11:40 in the morning. The other issues are not required to be decided as the parties have decided to bury the dispute and, therefore, on re-calculation the amount in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) would be as under:-
i. Income Rs. 8,000/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.3,200/-
iii. Total income : Rs. 8,000 + 3,200 = Rs. 11,200/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/4th : Rs. 8,400/-
v. Annual income : Rs.8,400 x 12 = Rs. 1,00,800/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 14
vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.1,00,800 x 14 = Rs. 14,11,200/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.15,000/-
ix. Total compensation : Rs. 14,26,200/-
7. The interest should not have been 8% but on the said amount interest should have been 7.5% which was in vogue during the year of judgment and 6% thereafter till deposit of amount.
8. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
9. 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.
10. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguti 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.
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. However, as the parties have settled on the enhanced amount it would be 6% to be deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount be disbursed in the proportion fixed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall not keep any amount on Fixed Deposit. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
12. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein.
13. The record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.
14. This Court is thankful to Sri Tiwari and the Officers of the Insurance company for ably assisting and getting this appeal disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.3.2023
Irshad
