Partly allowed

Smt. Meenal v. Tek Chand and Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2023FAFO/1127/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 3 lakhs, the Court modified the compensation to Rs. 4.72 lakhs. The Court ordered a 50% addition for future loss of income, raised the multiplier to 17, and set the interest rate at 9%, resulting in a partly allowed appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,72,000 with interest at 9%; original award modified by Tribunal; duty fees remitted.

Smt. Meenal Vs Tek Chand and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1127 of 1995

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Meenal Respondent :- Tek Chand And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Avanish Mishra,Prabhu Narain Srivastava,Suresh Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 6.9.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ VIth Additional District Judge, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.23-7of 1990 awarding a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation with 12 per cent rate of interest.

¶6

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.

¶7

The accident took place on 19.5.1990. The deceased was 29 years of age and was service man also a businessman by profession. The income of the deceased as per oral evidence and documentary evidence is concerned can be considered to be Rs.1750/- of service as he was in service ans was a partner in three firms when he died. He was a propertier of M/s Pratab Housing Factory, Indore. The income tax return for the three firms where he was a partner were produced but they do not show what was the income and, therefore, to claim Rs.62,00,000/- is on much higher side. The income of the deceased can be considered Rs.36,000/- month annum as he was survived by his wife and was an employment and having is own business and was the below the age of 30 years, 50% to be added.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has not added any amount under the head of future loss of income which should be granted in view of decision in of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 10, which would be 13 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC)

¶9

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded under non pecuniary damages is on the lower side and is required to be enhanced in view of the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093.

¶10

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the accident is of the year 2002 whereas the judgment of the Tribunal is prior to the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and, therefore, non addition of future loss of income is just and proper as the deceased was self employed.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the instant case, the income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.36000/- per annum.

¶12

The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that non grant of future loss of income is just and proper cannot be countenanced as the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) can be made applicable retrospectively. The submission that the deceased was not in job cannot be countenanced for refraining future loss of income. Self employed means his own vocation or business and not job and, therefore, this Court grants addition of 50% towards future loss of income of the deceased. This Court is in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier of 17 should be granted in view of the decision in Sarla Verma (Supra). As the appellant herein is the sole surviving legal representative of the deceased, the deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2. As far as amount under non-pecuniary heads is concerned, the appellants would be entitled to Rs.30,000/-.

¶13

Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:

¶14

i. Monthly Income: Rs.36000/- ( per annum)

¶15

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 50% namely Rs.18000/-

¶16

iii. Total income : Rs.36,000 +1800 = Rs.54000/-

¶17

iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses : Rs.26000/-

¶18

v. Multiplier applicable : 17

¶19

vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.26000 x 17 = Rs.4,42,000/-

¶20

vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.30,000/-

¶21

viii. Total compensation : Rs.4,72,000/-

¶22

As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 9% in view decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.242/243 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Birender and others) decided on 13 January, 2020 which is the latest in point of time.

¶23

No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 13. 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 amount be deposited by the respondentInsurance Company within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the award and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. Record be transmitted to Tribunal.

¶24

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

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. The said decision has also been reiterated by High Court Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No.4800 of 2021 (The

¶26

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) decided on 5.4.2022.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided.

¶30

Order Date :- 24.1.2023 Mukesh

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Meenal v. Tek Chand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meenal v. Tek Chand 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vidya Devi Mishra and Others Vs Yash Pal and Others

Bachchey Lal Verma and Others Vs Kashi Nath Singh and Another

Ram Autar Bansal Vs Rakesh Bajpayee and Others

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Smt. Pushpa

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Smt. Bhagwati and Others

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Smt. Ratna Das Gupta