High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:161804 Court No. - 44
Legal Reasoning
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1131 of 1999 Appellant :- Smt.Sarvesh Kumari And Another Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Agarwal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Anubhav Sinha Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent assisted by Sri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned Advocate. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 23.4.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Xth Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.450 of 1995 awarding a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. The accident took place on 17.7.1995 causing death of deceased-Ram Prakash Singh. The appellants are the widow, mother and children of deceased. He was 35 years of age at the time of accident and was a Security Guard by profession. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.15000/- per annum, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 16, added Rs.12000/- towards non pecuniary damages and that is how the Tribunal calculated the above compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 5. It is submitted that the income of the deceased considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it should have been considered to be Rs. 2280/- per month which was the income of the deceased. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income which according to counsel for the appellant should be 40% of the income. It is further submitted the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident and, therefore, the multiplier applicable would be 18 and not 16 as has been granted by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the amount awarded towards non pecuniary damages is also on the lower side and it should be in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court. In support of above arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 & Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the income considered by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of this Court as the income which has not been proved, cannot be granted. As far as age of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased on the basis of postmortem report according to which the age of the deceased was 35 years. Hence, the multiplier granted by the Tribunal is also just and proper. It is further submitted that as far as future prospects are concerned, the decisions cited herein above was not prevailing at the time of incident. It is lastly submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and it should be as per the repo rate prevailing. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court holds that the income of the deceased who was Security Guard should have been at least Rs.2000/- per month. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that future loss of income should not be granted, is not countenanced as judgements of those days were related to grant of future loss of income may be by different mode of calculation. Hence, in view of the decisions in Gobald Motor Services Ltd. and another v. R.M.K. Velusamy, 1962 SCR (1) 929 and General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C Versus Susamma Thomas, 1994 SCC (2) 176 and in Pranay Sethi (Supra), 40% should be added towards future loss of income. As far as age of the deceased is concerned, it has been rightly considered by the Tribunal between 31 to 35 years as according to Postmortem report his age was 35 years which may be varied from 1-2 years and not 10 years as claimed by the claimants. Hence, the multiplier appliable would be 16 as considered by the Tribunal. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, the same is not being disputed. As far as amount under the head of non pecuniary damages are concerned, Rs.70,000/- is granted in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). 8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: i. Income: Rs.2000/-per month namely Rs.24,000/- per year. ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.9600/- iii. Total income : Rs.24,000 + 9600 = Rs.33,600/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.22,400/- v. Multiplier applicable : 16 vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.22,400 x 16 = Rs.3,58,400/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.70,000/- viii. Total compensation : Rs.4,28,400/- 9. This takes this Court to the issue of interest. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. On the award of the Tribunal i.e. 1,72,000/- the interest of 12% is maintained. However, the enhanced amount would carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of award and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. 10. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
Decision
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. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided. Order Date :- 9.8.2023 DKS Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad