Smt. Anwari Begum And Others vs U..S.R.T.C. Lucknow Through Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8138 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1028 of 1997
 
Appellant :- Smt. Anwari Begum And Others
 
Respondent :- U..S.R.T.C. Lucknow Through Its Chairman And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- M.K. Rajvanshi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Suman Jaiswal
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellants has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.8.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Vth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 163 of 1994 (Smt. Anwari Begum and others Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others) awarding a sum of Rs. 43,000/- 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 learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

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 Babu Khan Chauhan in a road accident with the averments that on 7.6.1994, Babu Khan Chauhan-deceased was going to Khurja from his village Partapur on his scooter no. UPP 820. When he reached at Bulandshahar Khurja G.T. road near village Khetalpur Mansoli, a bus no. U.P.14B 7912 pertaining to U.P.S.R.T.C., 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 Babu Banarsidas District Hospital, Bulandshahar on 9.6.1994.

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 has submitted that learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.300/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and granted multiplier of 15.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that deceased was doing the business of General Merchant and was earning Rs.1200/- per month, however, the tribunal has considered his income to be Rs.300/- per month which is bad and it should be Rs.1200/-. The Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income which would be 40%. It is submitted that as the deceased was survived by his wife and two children, the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/3rd. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary damages. It is further stated that the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident, hence, the multiplier applicable would be 16. In support of the above arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 & Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

8. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. The income which is asked for cannot be granted in absence of any evidence to prove the same.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.500/- per month i.e. Rs.6,000/- per annum. The deceased will fall within the category of self employed and his age was in the age bracket of 35-40 years at the time of accident, hence, 30% of income shall be added towards future loss of income and 1/3rd 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 16 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)].

10. As far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, Rs.50,000/- each to the minor children who have lost their father at prime age 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)].

11. 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.6,000/- Per annum (Rs.5,00 X 12)

(ii) Percentage towards future prospects 30% : Rs. 1,800/-

(iii) Total income : Rs. 6,000/- + Rs.1,800/- = Rs. 7,800/-

(iv) Income after deduction 1/3: Rs.7,800/- - Rs.2,600/- = Rs.5,200/-

(v) Multiplier applicable : 16

(vi) Loss of Dependency : Rs. 5,200/- X 16 = Rs.83,200/-

(vii) Amount under non pecuniary head : Rs. 1,00,000/-

(viii) Total compensation : Rs.83,200/- + Rs.1,00,000/- = Rs.1,83,200/-

12. The rate of interest 12% cannot be granted on enhanced amount. The rate of interest would be 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition till the award and 6% thereafter.

13. 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 8 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 :- 21.3.2023

P.S.Parihar

(Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)