Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Babu vs Manager M/S Kandla Transport Co. And ... on 6 February, 2023
Author: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 44 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 200 of 1996 Appellant :- Dinesh Babu Respondent :- Manager M/S Kandla Transport Co. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- B.R. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.A. Khan Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri B.R.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr A.A. Khan, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and order dated 18.11.1995 passed by M.A.C.T/4th-Additional District Judge, Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 60 of 1993 awarding a sum of Rs. 57,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12%.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent-Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.
4. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 15.09.1992, petitioner Dinesh Babu alongwith his brother Surya Prakash was going on a cycle on his left side of the road from his school Devnagari Inter College Kuraoli to his village Nanamau, as soon as at about 12:20 p.m he reached near Gailanath bridge on G.T.Road, a new chasis No. B.R. X-9252 came from Bhagaon side rashly and negligently ad without any alarm collided with the petitioner and his brother were seriously injured and their cycle was damaged. The petitioner and his younger brother Surya Prakash were driving cycle on correct side of the road.
5. The injured was 15 year old student. The tribunal has considered his income to be Nil, granted Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of medical expenses, granted Rs. 2000/- towards attendant charges for past and future and Rs. 40,000/- towards pain, shock and sufferings and ultimately assessed the total compensation to be Rs. 57,000/-.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no amount under the head loss of income has been granted by the Tribunal which is unjust and should be at least Rs.2,000/- per month. It is submitted that no amount is granted under the head of monthly loss to injured which is also unjust and should be at least 50%. It is submitted that no amount under the head of future loss of income has been granted. It is also submitted that the amount under the non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded are also on the lower side and requires to be enhanced in view of the following authoritative pronouncements:
(i) Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, (2014) 5 SCC 330;
(ii) Syed. Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735;
(iii) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another, (2014) 11 SCC 178; and
(iv) Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011.
(v) Hari Babu Vs. Amrit Lal and others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 718 (All.).
(vi) Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65725
7. Can additional interest be granted, the answer is no. The claimant is claiming that his income was Rs. 25000/- p.a. There is 100% loss of injury. The tribunal has not considered what is the loss of earning capacity but 30 years have elapsed since 15 year old student become crippled.
8. As against this, it is submitted by Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent that even in the year 1992 the notional income can be Rs. 18,000/-p.m. and not more, there is no 100% loss of income, the multiplier of 15 is just and proper and could be granted even if this Court feels that the claimant is entitled to the enhanced amount.
9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, as he was a student, this Court feels that income with potential to earn can be considered to be Rs.1500/- per month. To which as the injured was 15 years at the time of accident, 50% of the income towards disability. Further, a lum sum of Rs. 50,000/- for medical expenses. As far as the amount under pain, shock and sufferings is concerned, Rs.50,000/- is granted.
10. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellant is computed herein below:
i. Income : Rs.1500/- ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.600/- iii. Total income : Rs. 1500 + 600 = Rs. 2100/- iv. Loss of earning capacity : 50% namely Rs. 1000/- (rounded up) v. Annual loss : Rs. 1000 x 12 = Rs. 12000/- vi. Multiplier applicable : 15 vii. Total loss : Rs. 12000 x 15 = Rs. 1,80,000/- viii. Medical expenses : Rs. 50,000/- ix. Amount under pain, shock and suffering : Rs.50,000/- xiii. Total compensation : 2,80,000/-
11. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till date.
12. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
13. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Award and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Record be sent back to tribunal forthwith.
19. This Court is thankful to both the learned Advocates for ably assisting this Court.
Order Date: 6.2.2023/PS