Allahabad High Court
Smt Jaya Dey And 4 Others vs Smt Nirmala Yadav And 3 Others on 20 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84033 Court No. - 85 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 15 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt Jaya Dey And 4 Others Opposite Party :- Smt Nirmala Yadav And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Hanuman Prasad Dube,Vipul Dube Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajay Singh,Vijay Kant Dwivedi Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard Shri Vipul Dube, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants and Shri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company.
2. The present review application has been filed seeking review of my judgment and order dated 19.11.2024 to a limited extent.
3. The submission is that in paragraph no. 13(i) of the order, on account of little defect in construction of sentence, the claimant appellants would not be able to get the benefit of the order of this Court. It is specifically pointed out that while computing the net income of the deceased for the purposes of the award, the court considering admissible deductions, rightly formed an opinion that except income tax, other amounts i.e. installments of loan, pension would not be deductable, however use of ',' in between the word 'salary' and the word 'except', conveys a different meaning.
4. On the point of deduction, learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sh. Fakir Chand Taneja and others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited and another: 2022 TAC 440 and Shyamawati Sharma and others Vs. Karam Singh and others: (2020) 12 SCC 378 and it is contended that the Apex Court has time and again clearly held that deductions (except income tax) would not be covered by the pecuniary damages and, therefore, the same shall be included in the income of the deceased while passing the award.
5. Per contra, Shri Ajay Singh has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others: 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (SC) and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court framed four issues in 15th paragraph of the judgment and answered the same against the appellant. He also refers to Rule 220-A of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 regarding determination of loss of income in claim cases.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the judgments relied by both sides read in favour of the claimants, that is to say that except income tax, other deductions, i.e. installments of loan, GPF, pension etc, would not be made. That means that while computing the compensation pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Court, the Tribunal shall deduct only income tax and no other deductions shall be made.
7. Paragraph no. 13(i) of the order dated 19.11.2024 shall be read accordingly.
8. Other submission is as regards multiplier applied by the Tribunal.
9. It is contended by Shri Dube that, in paragraph no. 5(c) of the order, this Court has noted the contention of the appellant regarding applicability of multiplier of "10" whereas, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another: (2009) 6 SCC 121, considering the age of the deceased being 40 years at the time of accident, multiplier of "15" would apply. It is contended that in paragraph no. 13(v) of the order, this Court has omitted to consider the submission and has erred by observing that multiplier would remain unchanged.
10. Shri Ajay Singh could not dispute that there was nothing on record to indicate that age of the deceased was not 40 years, therefore, the Court is of the view that application of multiplier of 10 instead of 15 is an error apparent on the face of the record and the same requires to be reviewed.
11. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal, while making re-computation of award in terms of order dated 19.11.2024, would apply multiplier of 15 instead of 10. Paragraph no. 13 (v) of the order deciding the appeal shall be read accordingly.
12. Shri Dubey has made certain further submissions regarding future prospects and has sought to place reliance on certain judgments. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the submissions made as such a discussion would go beyond the purview of review. It is always open for the appellant to challenge the order to this extent in appeal.
13. Consequently, the instant review application is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The final judgment and order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Court shall stand modified accordingly.
Order Date :- 20.5.2025 AKShukla/-