High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164944 Court No. - 44
Legal Reasoning
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 784 of 1999 Appellant :- Smt.Nageena Devi And Others Respondent :- Regional Manager And Another Counsel for Appellant :- R.N.Singh,V.K.Chandel Counsel for respondent : S.K. Mishra Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard V.K. Chandel, learned counsel for the claimant- appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased - Lalji Rai. Sri S. K.Mishra present for the respondent U.p.S.R.T.C 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 31.5.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Ist Additional District Judge, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. Case No.160 of 1993 awarding a sum of Rs.1,82,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12%. 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 18.10.1993. The deceased-Lali Rai was 36 years of age at the time of accident and was a clerk of an Advocate in district Azamgarh who died due to the injuries sustained in the vehicular accident. All these facts are not in dispute. The involvement of UPSRTC is also not in dispute and the liability fastened on the insurance company has attend finality. The Tribunal considered income of the deceased to be Rs.15000/- per annum, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 16, added Rs.22,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and in all awarded Rs.1,82,000/- as compensation. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a clerk with a Senior Advocate and was earning Rs.3000/- per month, however, the tribunal has considered his income to be Rs.15000/- per annum which is bad and it should be Rs.36000/- per annum. The Tribunal had not granted any amount towards future loss of income which would be 40%. It is submitted that as the deceased was survived by six legal heirs namely widow, four sons and one daughter, the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the amount awarded under non-pecuniary heads is also on the lower side and is required to be enhanced. He 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 in support of above arguments. 6. As against this, Sri S.K.Mishra, Advocate assisted by Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent U.P.R.S.Tsubmitted that the the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on lower side. Learned counsel for respondent further submitted that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and is bad in eye of law. It is submitted that the interest should be as per the repo rate. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that there can be no addition of amount as the accident is of the year 1993 when the Rule was not in vogue and the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 was not available. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, the income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.2000/- per month. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that future loss of income cannot be granted, is not accepted as judgements of Supreme court in the year 1999 related to grant of future loss of income may be by different mode of calculation but were being granted . 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). Hence, 40% should be added towards future loss of income. The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/4, as the deceased has left behind him his widow, four sons and one daughter. The deceased being 36 years of age, the multiplier applicable would be 16 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma (Supra). The appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards filial consortium, Rs.30,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.40,000/- to the widow of the deceased and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate in view of the decision in Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, 2021 (4) TAC 673 (SC). 8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed as herein below: i. Income Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,000/- per month) ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.9600/- iii. Total income : Rs.24000 + 9600 = Rs.33,600/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/4 : Rs.24750/- v. Multiplier applicable : 16 vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.24,750 x 16 = Rs.3,96,000/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/- viii. Total compensation : Rs.4,96,000/- 9. The oral objection under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of C.P.C of Sri S.K. Mishra, Advocate that rate of interest having not been 12% is accepted. The amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.242/243 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Birender and others) decided on 13 January, 2020 which is the latest in point of time. Hence, the above, amount awarded by the Tribunal would carry interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition 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-UPSRTC shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest as directed above. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. 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. Order Date :- 16.8.2023/Mukesh Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad