High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 44 Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118465 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 900 of 1997 Appellant :- Smt.Rekha Kumari And Others Respondent :- The New India Assurance Company Ltd.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Anubhav Sinha Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. 1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for respondents. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgement and award dated 31.5.1997 passed by M.A.C.T/XVth-Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Case No. 125 of 1996. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent-Insurance Company has not
Legal Reasoning
challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded. 3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that deceased Devendra Singh on 14.1.1996 at around 5.45 was going ahead of truck at Victoria park crossing by riding Heropuch bearing no. U.P.-80G-0454 which was dashed by the truck bearing no. U.A.V 9955, driven by it driver rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road as a result of which Devendra Singh died on the spot. 4. The deceased Devendra Singh on the date of accident i.e on 14.01.1996 was aged 30 years was working with a firm in Mumbai. The deceased has left behind him his mother, father, widow and two sons. The tribunal has considered his income to be Rs. 1500/-p.m, deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses and granted multiplier of 14, added Rs. 2000/- towards non pecuniary damages. The tribunal granted interest at the rate of 10%.
Legal Reasoning
5. It is submitted by Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs. 6000/-p.m and 40% of this be added as future loss of income and multiplier of 16 should be granted. It is submitted that 1/4th of the amount should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as the deceased was survived by five legal representatives. The rate of interest granted is just and proper. 6. After hearing Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri learned counsel for the insurance company the income of Rs. 1500/- p.m cannot be said to be on the lower side, the same is maintained, 40% of this monthly income would have to be added. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident hence multiplier of 16 as per the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, would be admissible. Rs. 70,000/- for non pecuniary damages. 7. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: i. Income : Rs.1500/- ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.600/- iii. Total income : Rs. 1500 + 600 = Rs. 2100/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/4th : Rs. 1575/- v. Annual loss : Rs. 1575 x 12 = Rs. 18,900/- vi. Multiplier applicable : 16 vii. Total loss : Rs. 18,900 x 16 = Rs. 3,02,400/- xii. Amount under non-pecuniary head : Rs.70,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- xiii. Total compensation : 4,00,000/- (round figure) 8. This takes this Court to the most interesting question namely rate of interest as many matters are lying pending in this Court since 1992 without notices being issued, without matter being listed on board even once, is this failure on the part of the Registry to list the matters and/or on the part of the learned counsels, I do not want to delve into the same but the fact is that this appeal has remained pending since 1997. 9. The interest on the enhanced amount would be 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition as that would have been rapo rate in the year 1997 till decision of tribunal. Thereafter, for the period for which steps were not taken a marginal rate of interest of 2% would be worked out by the insurance company on the total amount. The insurance company did not appear from 19.04.2004 till 03.04.2023 when fresh notices was issued, therefore, the claimant cannot be punished for that, therefore, again it would be 6% from 2004 till 2023 and i.e the date the insurance company was not represented before this Court. The insurance company appointed counsel in 2023. 10. As the matter has remain pending for about 2 decades no amount shall be kept in fixed deposit. The minor children would have become major by now and therefore the amount proportionate to their share would be paid by account payee cheque by the tribunal in view of the judgment of A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442. 11. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
Decision
12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the additional amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest as directed above. 13. 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 (supra), the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 10 years have elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R. 17. Record be sent back to the tribunal. 18. This Court is thankful to Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for respondents for getting this old appeal disposed of. Order Date :- 19.04.2023 PS Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad