Madhu Rani Shukla & Others V. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others

FAFOD/142/2004

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the claimants, Madhu Rani Shukla and others, against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The original tribunal awarded Rs.2,45,000 with an interest rate of 8% as compensation for the death of Sanjay Shukla, who was 25 years old at the time of the accident. The appeal contested the quantum of compensation, arguing for a higher assessment of the deceased's income and additional compensation for future loss of income and non-pecuniary damages, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others. The Insurance Company argued that the tribunal's decision was prior to the cited Supreme Court judgment, and thus no error was made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 820609 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC), Smt. Hansagauri P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291
• Laws Referred To: National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARVE SINGH
• Keywords: Compensation; Future loss of income; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Negligence; Non-pecuniary damages; Quantum of compensation
• Section: 194A(3)(ix)

Judgement Text

"Court No.-2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 142 of 2004 Appellant :- Madhu Rani Shukla & Others Respondent :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sharve Singh Counsel for Respondent :-Arvind Kumar Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. 1. Heard Sri Sharve Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. This defective appeal is of the year 1984. Delay in preferring the appeal has been condoned vide order of the date passed on delay condonation application. 3. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned. 4. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 12.2.2001 and decree dated 28.2.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, VIIth , District Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No.106 of 1991 awarding a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% as compensation. 5. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided by this Court is, the quantum of compensation awarded. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident and was a permanent sales man officiating as Incharge Depot, at Lal Bazar Almora. His income was considered by the Tribunal to be Rs.6,000/- per month which according to the counsel for the appellant is on the lower side and should be considered at least Rs.9,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which should be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that the amount granted under non-pecuniary damages are on the lower side and it should be as per the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). 7. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the award does not require any interference as the date of accident is 4.9.1990 and the decision of the Tribunal is prior to the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and therefore the Tribunal has not committed any error in not granting the future loss of income. 8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the factual data. This Court finds that the accident occurred on 4.9.1990 causing death of Sanjay Shukla who was 25 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.72,000/- per year which according to this Court, is just and proper. To which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 21-25, 25% of the income will have to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The amount under non-pecuniary heads should be at least Rs.1,00,000/- in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) as every three years 10% be added to Rs.70,000/-. In view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels no interference is called for as far as deduction of personal expenses is concerned. 9. The total compensation payable is recalculated and is computed herein below: i. Annual Income Rs.72,000/- ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 50% namely Rs.36,000/- iii. Total income : Rs.72,000 + Rs.36,000/- = Rs.1,08,000/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 half towards personal expenses : Rs.54,000/- v. Multiplier applicable : 18 vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.54,000/- x 18 = Rs.9,72,000/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/- viii. Total compensation : Rs.10,72,000/- 10. As far as issue of interest is concerned, I am in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant that the interest should be as per the repo rate of those days, hence, from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the award, the interest would be at the rate of 7% and thereafter during the pendency of appeal till the amount is deposited, it would be 3%. 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% from the date of filing of the claim petition till award and 3% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 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. Hansagauri 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 not blindly apply the judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case. Order Date :- 23.3.2022/Mukesh Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 142 of 2004 Appellant :- Madhu Rani Shukla And Others Respondent :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sharve Singh, Counsel for Respondent :- ,Arvind Kumar Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. (Ref: Order On Civil Misc. Delay Condonation application) This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. This application, accordingly, stands allowed. Order Date :- 23.3.2022/Mukesh Digitally signed by MUKESH SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.04.06 17:04:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad "