Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
National Ins Co. Ltd., Nellore Dist vs S Noorjahan, Nellore Dist 5 Others on 4 October, 2024
1
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALNO:1710 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard Sri V.Veerabhadra Chary, learned Standing counsel
appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as
Sri K.Diwakara Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C.Subodh,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act
1988, (in short 'M.V.Act'), has been filed by the appellant-National
Insurance Company Limited (in short 'Insurance Company'), challenging
the Award, dated 04.01.2016, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1153 of 2009 by the
Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,
Nellore (in short 'the Tribunal).
3. The claimants/respondents 1 to 5 filed M.V.O.P.No.1153 of
2009 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act (in short 'MVOP') for
compensation of Rs.62,99,000/- for the death of one Sk. Md.Abdul Umar
(hereinafter referred as 'deceased') in the motor accident, which occurred
on 05.06.2009 at about 3.30 pm., near Navalur Panchayat Office, on the
old Mahabalipuram Road, on the left side of the road towards
Kelampakkam, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
TATA ACE Truck bearing No.PY-01-AJ-3384 (offending vehicle), which
at high speed, hit the deceased from his backside, causing grievous
injuries, to which, he succumbed on the same day at hospital. The
deceased was aged about 26 years and was working as Associate
Consultant (Software Engineer) in Polaris Software Lab Limited, Polaris
House, Chennai, and drawing salary of Rs.31,269/- per month. The
deceased was an Income Tax assessee. He was unmarried. The
claimants 1 to 5 are the mother, father, two sisters and brother of the
deceased.
4. The 6th respondent herein, respondent No.1 in MVOP, is the
owner of the offending vehicle.
5. The appellant herein, 2nd respondent in MVOP, National
Insurance Company Limited filed written statement denying the material
averments of the claim petition and submitting that the claimants be put
to the strict proof of the averments of the claim petition. The accident
occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, while walking on
the road and thus, the deceased contributed in taking place of the
accident. There was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the
driver of the offending vehicle. Liability of the insurance company was
restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver of the
TATA ACE truck was not possessing valid driving license to drive
transport vehicle, though he was having license to drive Light Motor Non-
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
transport Vehicle and Motorcycle with Gear. The vehicle was not having
Fitness Certificate. The Insurance-Company is not liable to pay
compensation. The claim was highly excessive and out of proportions.
6. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration :
"1. Whether the accident took place
only due to rash and negligent driving of
TATA ACE Truck bearing registration
No.PY-01-AJ-3384 or whether the
deceased had also contributed in taking
place of the accident ?
2. Whether the petitioners are
entitled to claim compensation, if so, how
much amount and from which of the
respondents?
3. To what relief?"
7. I.A.No.1715/2010 filed by the Insurance-Company under
Section 170 of the MV Act was allowed by an order, dated 16.11.2010.
8. On behalf of the claimants, 1st claimant was examined as
P.W.1. They also examined eye-witness as P.W.2, Medical Officer as
P.W.3 and the Senior Manager of Polaris Software Lab Limited as P.W.4
and an Advocate, who translated the documents from Tamil to English as
P.W.5. Exs.A1 to A14 and Exs.C1 to C3 were got marked.
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
9. The Insurance Company examined an official of R.T.A,
Meenambakkam, Chennai as R.W.1 and its Assistant Manager as R.W.2.
Exs.B1 to B5 and Exs.X1 & X2 were got marked.
10. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e.,
TATA ACE Truck and the deceased died due to injuries in the said
accident. It was also recorded that there was no contributory negligence
on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal also recorded that though the
driver was not possessing valid license to drive TATA ACE Truck, but
was possessing driving license to drive i.e., Light Motor (Non-transport)
Vehicle and Motorcycle with Gear.
11. On the point of compensation, the Tribunal recorded that the
monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.29,474/- which was arrived after
deducting Conveyance Allowance of Rs.800/-, Medical Reimbursement
of RS.875/-, Ullas Trust contribution of Rs.50/-, Exigency Fund
contribution of Rs.50/- and Polaris Club subscription of Rs.20/-
(Rs.1,795/-) from the Gross salary of Rs.31,269/-. The deceased being
unmarried, 50% of the income was deducted towards his personal and
living expenses. The age of the deceased was considered as 26 and the
multiplier of '17' was applied. Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses were added. In total, the petition
was allowed for an amount of Rs.27,65,785/- with interest @ 7.5 % per
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The insurance
company was held liable to pay compensation to the third party. The
respondents 1 & 2 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the
compensation amount.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company
submitted that though the ground was taken in the appeal that driver was
having driving license to drive the Light Motor non-transport vehicle, and
he was driving the Light Motor Vehicle of transport, and as such, the
driving license was not valid and consequently, the insurance-company
was not liable to pay compensation, but as per the settled law, the driving
license of Light Motor Vehicle for non-transport holds drive good to
transport vehicle of the same category i.e., Light Motor Vehicle, and on
the said ground, the liability of the insurance company to make payment
of compensation cannot be denied, he is not pressing such ground.
13. On the point of just compensation to the
respondents/claimants, the submission advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellant is that the deceased was appointed in the company on
23.06.2008 (as per Ex.A11) and the date of accident is 05.06.2009. He
submitted that within a short span of one year of his appointment, he died
Consequently, no interest could be granted on the future prospects. He
submitted that nothing has been deducted towards Professional Tax,
though Professional Tax is to be deducted @ Rs.200/- per month.
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
14. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted
that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is not just and fair
compensation, which is inadequate and not as per the settled law. He
submitted that the deduction, which has been made by the Tribunal is not
correct. He submitted that the Tribunal awarded future prospects
@30%, which should be @ 40% as the deceased was below 40 years of
age and was a Software Engineer. The income tax deduction @ 30% is
unjust. Once the proof of salary was filed, the Tribunal ought to have
presumed that the payment was after deductions of the income tax. He
further submitted that the amount awarded under conventional heads is
not as per law and nothing has been awarded towards loss of
Consortium.
15. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondents relied upon
the following judgments:-
i) Rahul Sharma and Another V. National Insurance Company
Limited and Others1
ii) Nagappa V. Gurudayal Singh and Others2
iii) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram and others3
iv) United India Insurance Company Limited V. Satinder Kaur
Alias Satwinder Kaur and Others4
(2021) 6 SCC 188
(2003) 2 SCC 274
(2018) 18 SCC 130
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
16. We have considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
17. The following points arise for our consideration and
determination:-
1. Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and
fair compensation to the
respondents/claimants in the light of the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsels or the compensation awarded is
excessive or inadequate ?
2. Whether the interest was liable to be
awarded on entire amount of compensation
or excluding the future prospects, and at
what relief ?
ANALYSIS :-
POINT No.1 :-
(I) Just and Fair Compensation :-
18. It is a well settled in law that the claimants are entitled for
just and reasonable compensation, which should neither be a bonanza
nor a pittance. Effort must be made to determine the just compensation.
(2021) 11 SCC 780
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
In New India Assurance Company Ltd., V. Yogesh Devi and Others5,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the claimants are entitled for just and
reasonable compensation in a motor vehicles accident claim. It referred
to the case of State of Haryana and another V. Jasbir Kaur and
others6 , wherein it was held that "the compensation must be "just" and it
cannot be a bonanza: not a source of profit ; but the same should not be a
pittance".
(II) Income :-
19. So far as the deduction under the head of professional tax is
concerned, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that professional tax of Rs.200/- per month, which comes to
Rs.2,400/- per annum, was required to be deducted. We accordingly,
deduct the professional tax out of the gross income. It is settled in law
that the net income for computation of compensation is gross income
less tax deductions.
Deduction of Income Tax :-
20. The Tribunal has deducted 30% towards income tax. In the
case of Vimal Kanwar and Ors. Vs Kishore Dan and Ors., 7 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the absence of any evidence that the
2012 ACJ 702
(2003) 7 SCC 484
(2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 476
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
income tax on the estimated income of the employee was not deducted
from salary of the employee during the particular month or the financial
year. It is presumed that the salary paid to the deceased as per the last
pay certificate was paid in accordance with law i.e., by deducting the
income tax on the estimated income of the deceased by that month or
the financial year. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar (supra) held
as under in paras 22 to 25 as under:
"22. The third issue is "whether the income tax is
liable to be deducted for determination of
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act"
23. In Sarla Verma (Supra), this Court held "20.
Generally the actual income of the deceased less
income tax should be the starting point for calculating
the compensation." This Court further observed that
"24.....Where the annual income is in taxable range,
the word "actual salary" should be read as "actual
salary less tax". Therefore, it is clear that if the annual
income comes within the taxable range income tax is
required to be deducted for determination of the actual
salary. But while deducting income-tax from salary, it
is necessary to notice the nature of the income of the
victim. If the victim is receiving income chargeable
under the head "salaries" one should keep in mind
that under Section 192 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
any person responsible for paying any income
chargeable under the head "salaries" shall at the time
of payment, deduct income-tax on estimated income of
the employee from "salaries" for that financial year.
Such deduction is commonly known as tax deducted
at source ('TDS' for short). When the employer fails in
default to deduct the TDS from employee salary, as it
is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for
non-deduction of TDS is prescribed under Section
201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore,
in case the income of the victim is only from
"salary", the presumption would be that the
employer under Section 192 (1) of the Income-tax
Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
the employee's salary. In case if an objection is
raised by any party, the objector is required to
prove by producing evidence such as LPC to
suggest that the employer failed to deduct the
TDS from the salary of the employee.
However, there can be cases where the victim is
not a salaried person i.e. his income is from sources
other than salary, and the annual income falls within
taxable range, in such cases, if any objection as to
deduction of tax is made by a party then the claimant
is required to prove that the victim has already paid
income tax and no further tax has to be deducted from
the income.
24. In the present case, none of the respondents
brought to the notice of the Court that the income-tax
payable by the deceased Sajjan Singh was not
deducted at source by the employer-State
Government. No such statement was made by Ram
Avtar Parikh, PW-2 an employee of Public Works
Department of the State Government who placed on
record the Last Pay Certificate and the Service Book of
the deceased. The Tribunal or the High Court on
perusal of the Last Pay Certificate, have not noticed
that the income tax on the estimated income of the
employee was not deducted from the salary of the
employee during the said month or Financial Year. In
absence of such evidence, it is presumed that the
salary paid to the deceased Sajjan Singh as per Last
Pay Certificate was paid in accordance with law i.e.
by deducting the income-tax on the estimated income
of the deceased Sajjan Singh for that month or the
Financial Year. The appellants have specifically stated
that Assessment Year applicable in the instant case is
1997-1998 and not 1996-1997 as held by the High
Court. They have also taken specific plea that for the
Assessment Year 1997-1998 the rate of tax on income
more than 40,000/- and upto Rs. 60,000/- was 15%
and not 20% as held by the High Court. The aforesaid
fact has not been disputed by the respondents.
25. In view of the finding as recorded above
and the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961,
as discussed, we hold that the High Court was
wrong in deducting 20% from the salary of the
deceased towards income-tax, for calculating the
compensation. As per law, the presumption will
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
be that employer-State Government at the time of
payment of salary deducted income-tax on the
estimated income of the deceased employee from
the salary and in absence of any evidence, we
hold that the salary as shown in the Last Pay
Certificate at Rs. 8,920/- should be accepted
which if rounded off comes to Rs. 9,000/- for
calculating the compensation payable to the
dependent (s)."
21. In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Dasari Nagalakshmi8, a coordinate Bench of this Court observed on
the point of deduction of income tax as per the slab applicable from time
to time in different financial years, that certain exemptions like HRA,
Transport allowance, medical reimbursements, Home loans/study loans
etc., are provided under the Income Tax Act. In that scenario, it would be
difficult to visualize the amount of tax payable by the deceased as a lot of
it would depend on the tax planning and exemptions claimed by the
individual.
22. Consequently, the deduction @30% of the income tax as
deducted by the Tribunal is not justified and we set aside the same.
Other deductions :-
23. We have perused Ex.A12-Salary Certificate. The deductions
of Rs.1,245/- made are under different heads i.e., PF-1125/-, Ullas Trust-
MACMA.No.36 of 2024, APHC, decided on 18.12.2023
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
50/-, Exigency Fund-50/- and Polarc Club-20/-. The said deduction of
Rs.1,245/- as deducted by the Tribunal cannot be made.
24. As such, from the gross salary, the amount of Professional
Tax is to be deducted only, to arrive at established income, which shall
come to Rs.31,269/-200/- = Rs.31,069/- per month.
(III) Future Prospects :-
25. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future
prospects. The Claimants are entitled for future prospects and also
entitled for interest on the entire compensation amount.
26. On the point of future prospects, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and
Others9 has held as under :
"59.3. While determining the income, an addition
of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased
towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40 years,
should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the
age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In
case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60
years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary
should be read as actual salary less tax.
(2017)16 SCC 680
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased
was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25%
where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50
years and 10% where the deceased was between the
age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The established
income means the income minus the tax component."
27. Considering the nature of the job of the deceased as a
Associate Consultant (Software Engineer) and the age of the deceased
i.e., about 26 years, we are of the view that the claimants are entitled for
the future prospects @40%, on the monthly income of the deceased, in
addition, in view of the Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Accordingly, we
grant the same.
(IV) Dependants :-
28. The deceased was a bachelor. The respondents 1 to
5/claimants are mother, father, one major married sister, brother and
unmarried minor sister. The number of dependents may have some
relevance in deducting the personal expenses of the deceased. The
Tribunal has deducted 50% towards personal expenses.
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
29. In Sarla Verma (supra), the question No.(ii) framed
therein was as under:
"(ii) Whether the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased should be less than one-fourth
(1/4th) as contended by the appellants, or should be one-
third (1/3rd) as contended by the respondents ?"
30. In Sarla Verma(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court answered
the said question in paras 14 and 15, which are as follows:
"14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made
towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the
basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general
practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having
considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are
of the view that where the deceased was married, the
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where
the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-
fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members
exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants
are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal
and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is
also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is
likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will
not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will
be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to
the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even
if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the
mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50%
would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the
bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However,
where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the
income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or
brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to
one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-
third.
31. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitutional Bench in Para
No.42 observed and held as under:
"42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in
Sarla Verma on the aspect of deduction for personal
living expenses in paras 30, 31 and 32 must
ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in
the circumstances noted in the preceding paragraph is
made out."
32. From the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that where the
deceased is married, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, should be 1/3rd. Where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th, where the number of
dependant family members is 4 to 6, and 1/5th where the number of
dependant family members exceed six. Where the deceased is a
bachelor, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to
bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living
expenses. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is
likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a
dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent
and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus, even if
the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother will
be considered as dependent and 50% will be treated as the personal
and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the
family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent
on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers,
his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and
contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.
33. Therefore, the deceased being bachelor, but father being
alive, the siblings would not be dependant on the deceased. In view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Varma (supra), ½
(50%) is to be deducted, as mother is only the dependant.
(V) Conventional Heads :-
34. On the point of the conventional heads, as per the
judgments in National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi
and Others,10Magma National Insurance Company Limited vs Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors.,11Smt. Anjali and Others V. Lokendra
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2018) 18 SCC 130
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
Rathod and Others,12United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.,13and Rojalini Nayak and Others vs
Ajit Sahoo and Others 14 we award the enhanced amounts under the
Conventional Heads of loss of Consortium, loss of Estate and funeral
expenses, Rs. 48,400/- (per claimant) Rs. 18,150/-and Rs. 18,150/-
respectively as was awarded in Rojalini (Supra), which is with an
increase of 10% every three years.
35. The Claimants are thus entitled for the following amount as
just and fair compensation :-
S. No. Head Compensation Awarded
1. Net Annual Income Rs. 31,069/- x 12 = Rs. 3,72,828/-
(31,269 - 200/- = Rs. 31,069/-)
2. Future Prospects Rs. 1,49,131/-
(i.e., 40% of the income)
Total (i.e., 1+2) = Rs. 5,21,959/-
3. Deduction towards personal expenditure Rs. 2,60,979/-
(i.e.1/2)
4. Total Annual loss Rs. 2,60,979/-
5. Multiplier of 17 at the age of 26 years i.e. 17 x 2,60,979/- = Rs. 44,36,653/-
6. Conventional Heads:
Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,42,000/-
(Rs. 48,400/- x 5)
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/-
7. Total Compensation Rs. 47,14,953/-
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683
(2021) 11 SCC 780
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901.
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
36. Consequently, the compensation amount granted by the
Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.27,65,785/- to Rs.47,14,953/-.
(VI) Interest :-
37. The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of @ 7.5% p.a. In
Kumari Kiran vs. Sajjan Singh and others,15 the Hon'ble Apex Court
set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as
also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @7.5% and
awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul
Sharma & Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and
Others,16the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest p.a. from the
date of the claim petition. Also, in Kirthi and another vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited,17 the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed interest
@9% per annum.
38. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the interest is not to be awarded on the amount of future prospects
deserves rejection. In the Reliance General Insurance Company
(2015) 1 SCC 539
(2021) 6 SCC 188
(2021) 2 SCC 166
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
Limited V. Supreeth S V. B.Sakthivel and Others 18 the High
Court of Karnataka held, in Paragraphs 37 & 38 as under :
"37. The plea taken by the insurance
company that it is not liable to pay interest on the
future prospects, as the amount awarded under that
head would be the future earnings of the deceased is
not justifiable due to the reason that the claimants
are not being paid the entire earnings of the
deceased which he would have earned had he been
alive. Cases where there is no proof in certainty
regarding exact income, the Courts are taking
notional income into consideration. Either applying
appropriate multiplier as per the decision in Sarala
Verma's case or taking percentage of the said
income towards future prospects as per the decision
in Pranay Sethi's case is on probabilities but not on
exact figures. In no case, the claimants get the exact
amount which the deceased would have earned had
he been alive. In all cases the amount which the
claimants would get for their livelihood through the
deceased would be many times more than the actual
amount awarded. That apart, the insurance
companies are depositing the compensation years
after the date of accident which is in clear violation
of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
38. Furthermore, award of amount as
compensation is a one time procedure. Even if in the
future course it is found that the deceased would
have earned much more amount in the light of hike
in his position and global opportunities, the
Tribunals will not order payment of any further
amount and insurance companies will not be made
liable on that count. Such being the case, this Court
is of the view that the insurance companies are
liable to pay the awarded amount including the
amount awarded under the head future prospects
together with banking rate of interest which is
prevalent during relevant time. Thus, we ultimately
hold that, the insurance company cannot escape
MANU/KA/2654/2024
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
from the liability to pay interest on the future
prospects.
39. We are of the view that the interest is awarded on the entire
amount of compensation. In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex
Court awarded interest on the compensation as determined including the
future prospects. Any judgment to the contrary has not been placed
before us.
40. Accordingly, the claimants are granted interest @ 9 % p.a.
from the date of the claim petition till realization on the entire amount of
compensation as determined.
(VII) Result :-
41. IN THE RESULT,
i) the appeal of Insurance Company is dismissed;
ii) The claimants/respondents are granted enhanced
compensation of Rs.47,14,953/- as just and fair, with
interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of claim
petition till realization ;
iii) The appellant shall deposit the amount as
aforesaid, adjusting the amount already deposited if any,
before the Tribunal within one month;
iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants shall
be entitled to withdraw the same in the proportion as per
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
the award, failing which the amount shall be recovered as
per law ;
v) The costs throughout is made in favour of the
claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5, and as against the
appellant.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,
shall also stand closed.
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date : .10.2024.
RPD.
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1710 OF 2016)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
APPEAL NO: 1710 of 2016
DATE : 04.10.2024
RPD
