Partly allowed

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Munni and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Dec 2021FAFO/1574/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed appeals against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court directed recalculation of dependency compensation, increased interest to 7.5% from prior delays, and established TDS deduction rules for interest exceeding Rs.50,000 per financial year.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal to draw fresh award with modifications; Respondent to deposit additional amount with interest at 7.5% from filing date.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Munni and 4… — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1574 of 2020 Appellant :- United India Insurance Company Limited Respondent :- Munni And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vipul Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Mayank,Mayank,Rohit Shukla

¶3

¶4

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1717 of 2020

¶5

Appellant :- Smt. Munni Widow And 2 Others Respondent :- United India Insurance Company Ltd. And 2 Others

¶6

Counsel for Appellant :- Mayank Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents; and perused the record.

¶8

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 21.12.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.282 of 2017 awarding a sum of Rs.65,97,903/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.

¶9

3. This appeal requires to be dismissed as the issue of licence is no longer res integra and covered by the judgment of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 and the driver was having proper driving licence.

¶10

4. Appeal of insurance company is dismissed as no other ground is raised.

¶11

5. The cross appeal is filed by Shri Mayank, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶12

6. The submission of Sri Vipul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that H.R.A. had deducted as Rs.66,000/- as the total income and, therefore, the deduction is just and proper cannot be accepted as per the judgment of Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others, AIR 2013 SC 3830. The amount as Rs.9,720/- cannot be deducted from the amount as per the judgment of Vimal Kanwar (Supra) as three years has already elapsed 10% to the non pecuniary damages.

¶13

7. As far as other aspects is concerned, we do not think that computation needs any further recalculation multiplier is properly given and deduction is not in dispute.

¶14

8. Learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently objected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement.

¶15

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 04.03.2017 causing death of Praveen Kumar who was age 35 years of age and left behind him, widow, mother and father. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,04,375/- per annum. The deceased was Teacher by profession. The deductions made by the tribunal could not have been made. To which as the deceased was below the age of 40 years as an salaried person, 50% of the income will have to be added as future prospects in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 . As far as deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, it should be 1/3 as the deceased had three persons to feed. The multiplier of 16 would be applied and 6% rate of interest is maintained as granted by the court below.

¶16

10. In this backdrop let us see evaluate the income in view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, the recalculation would be as follows:

¶17

i. HRA deduction which has to be made Rs.9720/- per month.

¶18

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 50% namely Rs.4860/-

¶19

iii. Total income : Rs. 9720 + 4860 = Rs.14,580/-

¶20

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 : Rs.9,720/-

¶21

v. Multiplier applicable : 16 (as the deceased was in the age bracket of 31-35 years)

¶22

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs. 9,720 x 16 = Rs.1,55,520/viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.30,000/-

¶23

ix. Total additional compensation : Rs. 1,85,520/- .

¶24

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.

¶25

12. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguti 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.

¶26

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 not blindly apply the judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each

¶27

case.

¶28

14. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under :

¶29

"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court."

¶30

15. The insurance company has decided to settle the lis. The Apex Court in AIR 2021 SC 3301, Lakkamma & others. v. The Regional Manager M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd & another has accepted the submission of the insurance company that for a period when the appeal is belated. The interest shall not be paid. We will adopt the similar mode from the date of the judgment till the delay is condoned, interest be not granted.

¶31

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 along with additional amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.

¶32

17. We are thankful to learned counsels for the parties for ably assisted the Court.

¶33

18. Record be sent back to court below forthwith.

¶34

19. We are thankful to learned counsels for the parties for ably assisted the Court. Order Date :- 23.12.2021 A.N. Mishra

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Munni and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Munni and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Tayal Steels P Ltd. Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.

M/S Vehlna Steels and Alloys P Ltd. Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.

M/S R.A. Castings P Ltd. Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.

Smt. Munni Widow and 2 Others Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. and 2 Others

Vinod Trivedi Vs Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation and Others

Bony Dubey Vs M/S Shyam Bidi Works and Another