Partly allowed

Jagannath and Others v. Som Nath Vaish and Others

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2022FAFO/278/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's low compensation award. The court increased the liability to Rs.1,50,000, directing the insurer to deposit the difference with interest, while also issuing administrative guidelines on tax deductions and investment of funds.

What did the court decide?

Modified Tribunal award to Rs.1,50,000; insurer to deposit deficit with 4% interest from filing date; investment order cancelled.

Jagannath and Others Vs Som Nath Vaish and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 278 of 1987

¶3

Appellant :- Jagannath And Others Respondent :- Som Nath Vaish And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.L.Jaiswal,Sarv Singh Counsel for Respondent :- V.P. Mathur

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sarve Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Despite notices, none appears for the Insurance Company.

¶6

This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the award dated 20.12.1986 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VII A.D.J.) Allahabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 176 of 1983, (Jagannath and others Vs. Sobh Nath Vaish and other) awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/as compensation with interest at the rate of 6%.

¶7

Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 05.05.1983 at about 03 A.M. at G.T. Road in Village Sallahpur in front of Gurdwara, the deceased Prem Chand was standing on patari. At that time, a Car bearing Registration No.UTY 5180 which was coming from Allahabad in a very high speed without blowing horn, dashed against the deceased Prem Chand as a result of which, Prem Chand died on the spot.

¶8

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.

¶9

It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased was 19 years of age at the time of accident. The deceased was a cook and earning Rs.600/- p.m. He was survived by his father, mother and widow. The Tribunal has considered his income to be Rs. 150/-p.m. and ultimately assessed the total compensation to be Rs. 25,000/-.

¶10

The valuation of of quantum in the claim was Rs.1,50,000/-. The issue of negligence has attained finality as it is not brought notice to this Court as to whether the Insurance Company has or had preferred any appeal. However, the deceased left behind him his widow Manti Devi and at the time of the accident, Manti Devi was pregnant. The final award of Rs.25,000/- is assailed as that is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. The post mortem report says that the age of the boy was around 13 years. The

¶11

deceased was working as a cook, therefore, his age as decided to be 13 years could not have been. The approximate age as per the post mortem report is based on the scientific data and is the finding of fact, may that as it may be.

¶12

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the award is bad and relied on decision of this Court and Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC) relied by this Court in its recent decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad and Another, 2017 (2) AICC 1229 wherein this Court held as follows:

¶13

"6. Sri Ram Singh has heavily relied on the decision in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC) . It goes without saying the notional figure fixed by the Apex Court since Manju Devi's judgment has been consistently Rs.2,25,000 for children below the age of 15 years. I think that is just and proper and hence, the amount requires to be enhanced from Rs.1,57,000 to Rs.2,25,000 with 6% be recovered from the owner. The appeal is partly allowed. The cross-objection is also partly allowed."

¶14

The judgment of Kisan Gopal (Supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in this case the apex court did not deduct any amount towards personal expenses. Under all the heads, the judgment of Mumtaz Ahmad (Supra) is applicable to the facts of this case and once it is found that the deceased was a skilled labourer, this Court holds that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as per the judgments of the Apex Court would be just compensation awarded to the legal representatives.

¶15

In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. Record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 4% 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

This Court is thankful to Sri Sarve Singh, learned counsel for the appellants for getting this old matter decided.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.7.2022 Vivek Kr.

¶22

Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR Date: 2022.07.28 14:53:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagannath and Others v. Som Nath Vaish and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath and Others v. Som Nath Vaish and 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/Sunited India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs Krishna Kumar Agarwal

Sunil Kapoor Vs Krishna Singh

D. Chaturvedi and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar Jain and Another Vs Gurubachan Singh and Others

Naresh Kumar Garg and Another Vs Delhi Transport Corporetion

Mst. Kumkum Kashyap Vs Shri Jasram Singh