Partly allowed

Brijendra Singh and Another v. Sunil Rai and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2021FAFO/38/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident claim appeal, the High Court modified the compensation quantum awarded by the Tribunal, enhancing the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum and directing appropriate adjustments based on Supreme Court precedents regarding future loss of income and non-pecuniary damages.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 16,07,000/-; interest rate fixed at 7.5% p.a.; Insurance Company directed to deposit revised amount.

Brijendra Singh and Another Vs Sunil Rai and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

A.F.R.

Court No. - 21

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 38 of 2013

¶5

Appellant :- Brijendra Singh And Another Respondent :- Sunil Rai And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Autar Verma

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

By way of this appeal, the claimants have challenged the judgment and order dated 4.10.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (DAA), Jalaun at Orai (herein after referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MACP No.150 of 2011 awarding a sum of Rs.1,56,365/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

¶9

The claim petition was filed by the appellants, parents of the deceased before the Tribunal with the averments that on 14.4.2011 at about 12:30 in the afternoon, deceased, namely Kumari Beena Yadav @ Kumari Rita Yadav was returning to her home after studying in Kiran Career on bicycle. When she reached at the crossing of Zila Parishad Orai, a truck bearing No.MP09/HG-1398 came from opposite side, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver. The aforesaid truck hit the deceased. In this accident, the deceased/injured sustained grievous injuries and taken to the District Hospital from where considering the serious condition of her, she was referred to Jhansi Medical College. She was hospitalized in a private hospital in Mathura after Jhansi and subsequently, she was admitted in Sufdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, but during the course of treatment, she died on 6.5.2011.

¶10

Heard Shri Ram Autar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Though, notice has been sent to the respondent, none has appeared on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company.

¶11

The accident is not in dispute. The insurance company has not challenged the liability on it. The issue of negligence has attained finality. Now the only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶12

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased was unmarried girl aged about 21 years. She was a final year student of MA and preparing for competitive examination such as B.Ed. and Civil Services. It is also submitted that Tribunal has assessed her notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and no amount is awarded towards loss of future income. It is next submitted that towards non-pecuniary damages only Rs.5,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- was awarded for loss of estate, which is also on the lower side. It is further contended that no amount towards proper filial consortium is awarded.

¶14

The deceased was 21 years of age as she was born on 9.1.1990. She was well-educated girl and having bright future. The accident had taken place on 14.4.2011. Hence, we fix her monthly income as Rs.10,000/- per month, namely Rs.1,20,000/per annum.

¶15

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 selfemployed and his age was 20 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 18 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.5,000/- each 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 (SC)] .

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

i.	Annual Income	Rs.10,000/- x 12	Rs.1,20,000/-
ii.	Percentage towards Future-Prospects (40%)	Rs.1,20,000/- x 40%	Rs.48,000/-
iii.	Total Income	Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.48,000/-	Rs.1,68,000/-
iv.	Income after deduction of 1/2	Rs.1,68,000/- - Rs.84,000/-	Rs.84,000/-
v.	Multiplier applicable	18
vi.	Loss of dependency	Rs.84,000/- x 18	Rs.15,12,000/-
vii.	Funeral Expenses		Rs.15,000/-
viii.	Filial Consortium	Rs.40,000/- x 2	Rs.80,000/-
ix.	Total Compensation	Rs.15,12,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.80,000/-	Rs.16,07,000/-

¶19

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:

¶20

"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."

¶21

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.

¶22

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 Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 8 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.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 13.12.2021 LN Tripathi

Brijendra Singh and Another v. Sunil Rai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijendra Singh and Another v. Sunil Rai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.P.Power Corp.Ltd. Lko. and Others Vs M/S Real Cement Co. P. Ltd. Jalaun

Smt. Reena Agarwal and Others Vs Upsrtc and Others

Smt. Usha and 4 Others Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. Tedhi Kothi Lucknow and Another

Anwar Ahmad Vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation

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

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