Allahabad High Court
Smt.Brahmawati And Another vs Rajendra Singh And Others on 23 March, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Reserved on 17.3.2023
Delivered on 23.3.2023
Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 331 of 1996
Appellant :- Smt.Brahmawati And Another
Respondent :- Rajendra Singh And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- R.P.Singh,Babloo Pant,Kamla Prasad Tiwari,Saurabh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Shukla
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard Mr. A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abhinav Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.
This First Appeal From Order has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act, 1988') by appellants being aggrieved by order dated 7.31996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut in M.A.C.T. No. 4400 of 1992 awarding a sum of Rs.45,000/- only.
This is a claimant's appeal claiming enhancement of compensation for the death of a young boy, who was 17 years of age at the time of death. It has been averred in the memo of appeal in the year 1992, normally the amount awardable to the minor/child would be at least Rs.2,25,000/- for which reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609, claiming a sum of Rs.50 lacs as compensation.
Reliance is placed on the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu, 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67995, hence the said decision is also looked into. The concept of just compensation has been lost site of by the Tribunal. The decision which holds the field would not be the judgment of Kisan Gopal (Supra) and Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali (Supra) but would be the judgment of Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 which has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Triloki Chand, 1996 ACJ Page 31, and amount would be as per the law prevailing in the year of accident.
This Court has held that Rs.2,25,000/- is just amount to be awarded for the death of young boy below the age of 19 years in the year 1992-95. The accident in our case occurred on 16.10.1993 at about 3:45 PM. The accident having been occurred involving the jeep is not in dispute. The vehicle being insured with the Insurance Company and there is no breach of policy condition, has also attained finality. The appellants are parents of the deceased is also not dispute. The learned Tribunal most unfortunately has given a cryptic finding and has not relied on the decisions cited before it and the amount awarded Rs.45,000/- which requires to be enhanced in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court prevailing in those days.
The total compensation would be as per the decision in Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 8 SCC 197, R.K. Malik and another Vs. Kiran Pal and others, (2009) 14 SCC 1 and in the decision of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others, 2022 (0) Supreme (SC) 1040, the deceased was 12 years of age, accident had occurred in the year 1993. In our case, the accident occurred in the year 1992, a decade before and therefore, Rs.2,25,000/- would be just and proper compensation.
The oral submission of learned counsel for the respondents is accepted that it is continuation of the litigation, that the rate of interest would be 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the award of the learned Tribunal and 6% thereafter.
In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The additional amount be recalculated with interest as directed above and deposited within 8 weeks from today. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This Court is thankful to learned counsel for the parties for ably assisting this Court in getting this appeal disposed off.
Order Date :- 23.3.2023
P.S.Parihar
