Jamuna Prasad Agarwal V. Union Of India and Another

FAFO/486/1995

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jamuna Prasad Agarwal against the Union of India and another, challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agra. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.50,000 as compensation for the death of Jagdish Prasad in a motor accident, which the appellant argued was insufficient. The appeal contested the Tribunal's decision on the grounds of inadequate compensation considering the deceased's age, income, and the dependency of his family members. The High Court of Allahabad, after considering the arguments and relevant legal precedents, increased the compensation amount and adjusted the interest rate applicable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800545 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Gobald Motor Services Ltd. and another v. R.M.K. Velusamy, General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C Versus Susamma Thomas
• Laws Referred To: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093, Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, Gobald Motor Services Ltd. and another v. R.M.K. Velusamy, 1962 SCR (1) 929, General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C Versus Susamma Thomas, 1994 SCC (2) 176
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANANT TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHAV JAIN
• Keywords: Compensation; Future loss of income; Interest Rate; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Negligence; Non-pecuniary damages; Quantum of compensation
• Section: 194A(3)(ix)

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 44 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 486 of 1995 Appellant :- Jamuna Prasad Agarwal Respondent :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Anant Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. 1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for Union of India. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and award dated 6.1.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IXth Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No.98 of 1994 awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- 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 also not in dispute. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. The accident took place on 15.12.1993. The deceased- Jagdish Prasad was 24 years of age at the time of accident and was doing stone business. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% holding that the widow was not living in her matrimonial home and the father of the deceased is the only claimant who was not dependant on the deceased. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the finding of the Tribunal is bad. The father come in Class II heirship and he is a legal representative and, therefore, he was entitled for compensation. It is further submitted that the deceased was having his business and he was earning Rs.2500/- per month. To which, it is submitted that 40% should be granted towards future loss of income. It is submitted that as the deceased was survived by his widow and father, the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/2. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Rs. 50,000/- should be granted under non- pecuniary head. It is further stated that the deceased was 24 years of age at the time of accident, hence, the multiplier applicable would be 18. He has relied on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 & Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 in support of above arguments. 6. As against this, it is submitted that widow was not before the Tribunal and the father was not dependent on the deceased as he was having his own income and, therefore, no amount be paid over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the income of the deceased was not proved. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised oral cross objection and has contended that the interest at the rate of 12% awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and is bad in the eye of law. It is submitted that the interest should be as per the repo rate. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that there can be no addition of future prospect as in the year of incident the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 was not available. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.1500/- per month i.e. Rs.18,000/- per annum. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent future loss of income cannot be granted, is not countenanced as judgements of those days were related to grant of future loss of income may be by different mode of calculation. Hence, in view of the decisions in Gobald Motor Services Ltd. and another v. R.M.K. Velusamy, 1962 SCR (1) 929 and General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C Versus Susamma Thomas, 1994 SCC (2) 176 and in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Hence, 40% should be added towards future loss of income. The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/2 as the deceased has left behind him his widow and father. The deceased being 24 years of age, the multiplier applicable would be 18 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma (Supra). As far as amount under the head of non pecuniary damages are concerned, the Rs.30,000/- is granted towards filial consortium. 8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: i. Income: Rs.1500/-per month namely Rs. 18,000/- per year. ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.7200/- iii. Total income : Rs.18,000 +7200 = Rs.25,200/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses : Rs.12,600/- v. Multiplier applicable : 18 vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.12,600 x 18 = Rs.2,26,800/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.30,000/- viii. Total compensation : Rs.2,56,800/- 9. As far as issue of interest is concerned, this Court is in agreement with learned counsel for the respondent that interest should not have been awarded at the rate of 12%. Hence, the above, amount awarded by the Tribunal would carry interest at the rate of 7% & the enhanced amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. 10. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 11. 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 shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest as directed above and disbursed to the claimant. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided. Order Date :- 5.4.2023 DKS Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad "