He has relied on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi and others
Case Details
Court No. - 44 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 283 of 1996 Appellant :- Smt.Shakuntala Rani Bansal & others Respondent :- Gorakhpur Universigy & others Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for respondent-Gorakhpur University for a period of more than 26 years though the notices were sent long back. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 18.11.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IXth Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. Case No.322 of 1992 awarding a sum of Rs.1,63,152/- 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 4.2.1992. The deceased-Vinod Kumar was 39 years of age at the time of accident and was doing the business of Hojari. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.1700/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 12 and that is how the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,63,152/-. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was doing the business of Hojari fabric and was earning Rs.2000/- per month, however, the tribunal has considered his income to be Rs.1700/- per month which is bad and it should be Rs.2500/-. 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 parents, widow and three children, 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. It is further stated that the deceased was 39 years of age at the time of accident, hence, the multiplier applicable would be 15 and not 12. 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. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of record, the income considered by the Tribunal is just and proper. This Court is in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant that future prosepect should be granted as even judgments 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. The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/4th as the deceased has left behind him six legal heirs. The deceased being 16 years of age, the multiplier applicable would be 18 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma (Supra). As far as amount under the head of non pecuniary damages are concerned, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.50,000/-. 7. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: i. Income: Rs.1700/-per month namely Rs.20,400/- per year. ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.8160/- iii. Total income : Rs.20,400 + 8160 = Rs.28,560/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses : Rs.21,420/- v. Multiplier applicable : 15 vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.21,420 x 15 = Rs.3,21,300/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.50,000/- viii. Total compensation : Rs.3,71,300/- 8. As far as issue of interest is concerned, it should not have been awarded at the rate of 12%. Hence, the above, amount would carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the award and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 9. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 10. 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-University 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 :- 22.2.2023 DKS Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad