Allahabad High Court
Smt. Raj Kumari And Another vs Surendra Kumar And Another on 10 February, 2022
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2063 of 2011 Appellant :- Smt. Raj Kumari And Another Respondent :- Surendra Kumar And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anju Shukla,Nigmendra Shukla Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
1. As per office report dated 10.09.2019, notice dispatched to the respondent nos.1 and 2 by registered post AD has been returned undelivered. It is also reported that as sufficient period has elapsed from the date of issuance of notice, hence service of notice upon respondent nos. 1 and 2 is deemed sufficient in view of Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the High Court Rules.
2. Heard Sri Anuj Shukla and Sri Nigmendra Shukla, learned counsels for the appellants and perused the record.
3. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 28.01.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. Case No. 73 of 2006 awarding a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6%.
4. 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.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 21 years of age at the time of accident and was a student of BDS first year. The Tribunal has considered the income of deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per annum. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses, considered the dependency as Rs. 10,000/- per annum, granted multiplier of 15 and added Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal on the basis of above calculation granted Rs.1,52,000/- to the claimants. The decision in the case of Sakti Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2010 (1) TAC page 4 has been relied upon by the Tribunal and that is why the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The said view cannot stand scrutiny by this Court is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants.
6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Meena Pawaia & others Vs. Ashraf Ali and others 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694 wherein the Apex Court has considered the income of the deceased who was in the age group of 21-22 years and was 3rd year student in civil engineering to be Rs. 10,000/- per month, even under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012 and granted the amount under the head of future rise in income, though the income was considered to be on notional side. The Apex Court after considering the judgment of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 (SC) 5157, Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, added 40% towards future loss of income of the deceased.
7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the multiplier, amount loss of income and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and are required to be enhanced in view of the above decisions of the Apex Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and considered the decisions of the Apex Court, we are of the view that the income of the deceased who was a student of B.D.S. 1st year, would be at least Rs.10,000/- per month. To which, as the deceased was below 40 years of age, 40% should be added towards future loss of income of the deceased. As the deceased was bachelor and had mother and father, he would be spending 50% of the said amount for his personal expenses hence, deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/2 and not 1/3rd as has been done by the Tribunal. The multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal on the basis of age of the parents is bad, as it should be on the basis of the age of the deceased who was in the age bracket of 21-25 years. Hence, the applicable multiplier would be 18. We are supported in our view by the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Meena Pawaiwa (Supra). The Tribunal added only Rs. 2000/- and has not granted any amount under the head of Funeral and consortium to the parents. We see no reason why the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in Smt. Meena Pawaia (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) should not be made applicable wherein the Apex Court has granted Rs.70,000/- towards non pecuniary damages. We grant Rs.70,000/- towards non pecuniary damages on which the claimants shall also be entitled to 10% rise in every three years as held by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and, therefore, we make the figure to Rs. 1,00,000/- for non pecuniary damages.
9. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:
i. Income: Rs.10,000/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.4000/-
iii. Total income : Rs.10,000 + 4000 = Rs.14,000/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses : Rs.7,000/-
v. Annual income : Rs.7,000 x 12 = Rs.84,000/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 18 vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.84,000 x 18 = Rs.15,12,000/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/-
ix. Total compensation : Rs.16,12,000/-
10. 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 :
"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."
11. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
12. 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 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. Record be transmitted to Tribunal.
13. 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.
14. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguti 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.
15. 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.
16. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this old matter decided.
Order Date :- 10.2.2022 Lbm/-