Partly allowed

Smt. Uma Ojha and Others v. Paramjit Singh and Another

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2021FAFO/1692/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a first appeal partly, modifying a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court enhanced compensation by applying correct multiplier and adding future prospects, adjusted interest to 7.5% per annum, and directed disbursement following TDS rules.

What did the court decide?

Award modified with total compensation Rs. 11,18,320/- and interest at 7.5% p.a. Amount to be deposited by respondent and records sent back for disbursement.

Smt. Uma Ojha and Others Vs Paramjit Singh and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1692 of 2002

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Uma Ojha And Others Respondent :- Paramjit Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- A.C. Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

¶5

(Per: Hon’ble Ajai Tyagi, J)

¶6

By way of this appeal, the claimants have challenged the judgement and order dated 27.05.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge XII, Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C.P. No.335 of 2000 awarding sum of Rs.4,53,500/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9%.

¶7

Heard Shri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the respondent as well as perused the record.

¶8

The accident is not in dispute. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) has not challenged the liability on it. Now the only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. As no other argument was advanced by any of the parties when the matter was heard, the details of case except for deciding the compensation are not being narrated.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased was of 45 years of age at the time of accident and he was in service with Arvind Footwear Company and getting

¶10

Rs.7,200/- per month as salary. Learned counsel submitted that there is no dispute regarding the assessment of monthly income of the deceased but learned Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards future loss of income. It is also next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that Tribunal has applied multiplier of 13, which is against the law, because the age of the deceased was 45 years and multiplier of 18 should be applied. It is also contended that Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and the amount under these heads should be enhanced. No other argument was placed by the appellants on the issue of amount of compensation.

¶11

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently opposed the arguments placed by the appellants and submitted that learned Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in fixing the compensation. Tribunal has made correct assessment of income of the deceased and sufficient compensation has been awarded in accordance with law. Hence, it needs no interference by this Court.

¶12

Perusal of the record shows that it is admitted fact that deceased was 45 years of age at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.7,200/- per month. There is no dispute on the point of income of the deceased. But, Tribunal has committed error by not awarding any compensation for future loss of income of the deceased. According to the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093, 30% shall be added towards future prospects because the age of the deceased was 45 years. As the number of dependents is three, 1/3 will be deducted for personal expenses

¶13

¶14

of the deceased. The age of the deceased was 45 years, therefore, as per judgement of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 Lawsuit (SC) 613 , multiplier of 14 shall be applied. Tribunal has awarded only 5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, which are on very lower side. According to the judgement of the Apex Court Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), appellants shall be entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate . Apart from it, the wife of the deceased shall be entitled to get Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. In this way, the appellants shall be entitled to get Rs.70,000/- for non-pecuniary damages.

¶15

Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) is computed herein below:

¶16

i. Annual Income Rs.7,200 x 12 = Rs.86,400/-

¶17

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 30% = Rs.25,920/-

¶18

iii. Total Income : Rs.86,400 + Rs.25,920 = Rs.1,12,320/-

¶19

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd : Rs.1,12,320 – Rs.37,440 = Rs.74,880/-

¶20

v. Multiplier applicable : 14

¶21

vi. Total loss Rs.74,880 x 14 = Rs.10,48,320/-

¶22

¶23

vii. Amount under non-pecuniary heads = Rs.70,000/-

¶24

viii. Total compensation : 11,18,320/-

¶25

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:

¶26

"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."

¶27

Learned Tribunal has awarded rate of interest as 9% per annum but we are fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the light of the above judgment.

¶28

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 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.

¶29

¶30

In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 and this High Court in 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 claimants 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) and in First Appeal From Order No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021 while disbursing the amount.

¶31

The records and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal for disbursement.

¶32

(Ajai Tyagi, J.) (Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)

¶33

Order Date :- 15.12.2021 Ashutosh Pandey

¶34

Smt. Uma Ojha and Others v. Paramjit Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Uma Ojha and Others v. Paramjit Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jasveer Kaur and Anr. Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Anr.

Kiran Rai and 5 Others Vs National Insurance Company Limited and 2 Others

Brijendra Singh and Another Vs Sunil Rai and Another

Eeda Khan Vs State of U.P.

Akanksha Baranwal Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Vishal Gupta Vs Director I.G.F.R.I. and Others