High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 44 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 763 of 1998 Appellant :- Kiran Devi Respondent :- U.P. State Road Tranpsort Corporation Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent. . 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and award dated 22.4.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/XIth Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No.114 of 1996 awarding a sum of Rs.52,000/- 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 1.8.1995. The deceased-Phool Singh was 55 years of age at the time of accident and was doing agriculture & Animal Farming. The Tribunal has considered his income to be Rs.800/- per month. Tribunal has further assessed his income to be rupees eight to ten thousand, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 5. The Tribunal has assessed compensation to 6000 x 5 = 30,000/- but has awarded the amount of Rs.50,000/- which was the amount payable under No fault liability at that time. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. In all, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.52,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the finding of the Tribunal is bad. It is further submitted that the deceased was earning Rs.2000/- per month from agriculture and farming activities. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income which has to be granted in view of the decision of the Apex Court. It is further submitted that deceased was 55 years of age at the time of accident and, therefore, the multiplier would be 11 and not 5 as granted by the Tribunal. It is lastly submitted that the amount awarded under the non-pecuniary heads is also on the lower and it should be enhanced. In support of the above arguments, learned counsel for the appellant 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, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent that the income as considered by the Tribunal is just and proper as the income which is being asked for has not been proved before the Tribunal. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that there can be no addition of future prospect as in the year of incident the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (Supra) was not available. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised oral cross objection and has contended that the interest at the rate of 12% awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and is bad in the eye of law. It is submitted that the interest should be as per the repo rate. It is submitted that deceased was survived by his sister only, hence, the deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 and not 1/3rd as considered by Tribunal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.800/- per month i.e. Rs.9,600/- per annum. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent future loss of income cannot 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), 10% should be added towards future loss of income. The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/2 as the deceased was bachelor. The deceased being 55 years of age, the multiplier applicable would be 11 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma (Supra). As far as amount under the head of non pecuniary damages are concerned, Rs.30,000/- is granted. 8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: i. Income: Rs.800/-per month namely Rs. 9600/- per year. ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 10% namely Rs.960/- iii. Total income : Rs.9600 + 960 = Rs.10,560/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses : Rs.5280/- v. Multiplier applicable : 11 vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.5280 x 11 = Rs.58080/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.30,000/- viii. Total compensation : Rs.88,080/- 9. As far as issue of interest is concerned, this Court is in agreement with learned counsel for the respondent that interest should not have been awarded at the rate of 12%. Hence, the above amount would carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the 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 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. 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. 16. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided. Order Date :- 25.4.2023 DKS Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad