Partly allowed

Rajesh and 4 Others v. Mohinder Singh and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2021FAFO/289/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to claimants for a fatal road accident involving the death of Toshindra Singh. The court enhanced the compensation, granting future loss of income, filial consortium, and revised non-pecuniary damages. Interest was fixed at 7.5% p.a., and a framework for TDS deduction was laid down.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 12,52,400/-; interest fixed at 7.5% p.a.; respondent directed to deposit amount within 08 weeks.

Rajesh and 4 Others Vs Mohinder Singh and 3 Others — Income Tax | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 289 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Rajesh And 4 Others Respondent :- Mohinder Singh And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nigamendra Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Avdhesh Chandra Nigam,Rahul Agarwal

¶4

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

¶5

(Oral Judgment by Hon’ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

¶6

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chairman, District Judge, Baghpat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 110 of 2016 (Smt. Rajesh and others Vs. Mohinder Singh and others), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,35,000/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

¶7

2. The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of quantum.

¶8

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Toshindra Singh in a road accident with the averments that on 08.09.2016 at about 5:30 the deceased was going on motorcycle from Baghpat to his house. When the motorcycle reached near Gufa Wale Temple on Baghpat-Baraut road, U.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. U.P.17 T 9342 was coming from the side of Baraut, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. In this accident, deceased sustained fatal injuries and he died on the spot. Respondents filed their respective written statements.

¶9

¶10

4. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellants preferred this appeal.

¶11

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

6. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has attained finality and the U.P.S.R.T.C. has not challenged the liability imposed on it by the Tribunal. The only issued to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶13

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the deceased was 27 years of age at the time of accident and was unmarried. It is also submitted that deceased was employed at the petrol pump and getting Rs.12,000/- salary. Apart from it, the deceased was doing farming also by which he used to earn Rs.6,000/per month, hence, the total income of the deceased was Rs.18,000/per month. It is next submitted that Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future loss of income.

¶14

8. There is no dispute regarding the deduction of ½ of the income of the deceased and multiplier applied. It is also argued by learned counsel for the appellants that towards non pecuniary damages, Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/for funeral expenses which are on the lower side and filial consortium is also not awarded.

¶15

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the judgment and order passed by Tribunal also does not suffer from any such infirmity or illegality which may call for any interference by this court.

¶16

10. It is admitted fact that age of the deceased was 27 years and he

¶17

¶18

was unmarried boy. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. Tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.5,000/- per month. It is contended by the counsel for the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/from the service at the petrol pump and Rs.6,000/- from the agriculture. It is not possible for a person to work at two different places simultaneously, hence, we assess the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶19

11. The Tribunal has not added any percentage of amount towards future loss of income, which is, in our opinion, grave error. Since, the deceased will fall within the category of self-employed and his age was 27 years at the time of accident, 40% shall be added towards future prospects as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)]. Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in Munna Lal Jain vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma [2015 (3) TAC 1 (SC)] that if the deceased was unmarried, 1/2 shall be deducted for his personal expenses. In this case, Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that multiplier will be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. Therefore, keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 will be applied in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)]. As far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, which are also on the lower-side. In the light of Judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), claimants shall be entitled to get Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. Rs.40,000/- x 2 = Rs.80,000/towards filial consortium is granted in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another [2021 (4) TAC

¶20

¶21

(SC)] .

¶22

12. Hence, the total compensation, in view of the above discussions, payable to the appellants-claimants is being computed herein below:

¶23

(i) Annual Income : 96,000/- Per annum (Rs.8,000 X 12)

¶24

(ii) Percentage towards future prospects 40% : Rs. 38,400/-

¶25

(iii) Total income : Rs. 96,000/- + Rs.38,400/- = Rs. 1,34,400/-

¶26

(iv) Income after deduction ½ : Rs.67,200/-

¶27

(v) Multiplier applicable : 17

¶28

(vi) Loss of Dependency : Rs. 67,200/- X 17 = Rs.11,42,400/-

¶29

(vii) Filial consortium : 40,000/- X 2 = Rs.80,000/-

¶30

(viii) Amount under non pecuniary head : Rs.30,000/-

¶31

(ix) Total compensation : Rs.11,42,400 + 80,000 + 30,000 = Rs.12,52,400/-

¶32

13. 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:

¶33

"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."

¶34

14. Learned Tribunal has awarded rate of interest as 7% per annum but we are fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the light of the above judgment.

¶35

¶36

15. 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-U.P.S.R.T.C. shall deposit the amount within a period of 08 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.

¶37

16. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [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.

¶38

Order Date :- 16.12.2021 P.S.Parihar

¶39

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

¶40

Rajesh and 4 Others v. Mohinder Singh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh and 4 Others v. Mohinder Singh and 3 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

Smt. Gyanesh and 2 Others Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Others

Darshan Lal Bohra Vs Noida and Another

Smt. Anju Jaiswal and 2 Others Vs Bileshvar and 3 Others

Niranjan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudami Devi and Others Vs U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan and Ors.

U.P. Financial Corpn. Ltd. and Others Vs M/S. Vigo Agro Food Processor Ltd.