Court No. - 37
AFR Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1408 of 2021 Appellant :- Smt Dareshwati And Another Respondent :- Meerut City Transport Services Ltd And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pranshu Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Sunil Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
1. Heard Sri Pranshu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 22.1.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No.65 of 2018 awarding a sum of Rs.7,66,134/- with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation. 3. Despite
3. 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 is, the quantum of compensation awarded.
4. Despite the fact that the Tribunal has referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050, it has held that law prescribes that multiplier is applicable to the age of the parent which is vehemently objected by Sri Pranshu Gupta that the Tribunal has misread the law on the point.
5. Judgment in Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 Law Suit (SC) 536 and Pranay Sethi (supra) would not permit us to concur with the Tribunal as the multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal in para 31 is reversed. Multiplier of 17 would be applicable in the present case.
6. This now takes us to the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fallen in error and has misdirected itself in granting what can be said to be 40% under the head of future loss of income. Pranay Sethi (supra) only bifurcates self employed, non-employed and people who are in employment. Evidence categorically shows that the deceased was working as peon in ICICI Bank Branch Bachcha Park, Meerut and was getting salary also, which is clear from paragraph 29. He had joined in the pay scale of Rs.8,810/- which thereafter was increased to Rs.11,047/-. However, the amount of Rs.10,617/- was deposited in the month of 2017 in his bank accounts and, therefore, we also consider the same as his income.We are unable to be accept the submission of Sri Mishra that 40% awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. It should be 50%. One more aspect is noted namely that the Tribunal has considered the income, namely Rs.10617/- then deducted 1/2 as expenses of deceased, who was bachelor, and then added 40% which cannot be done. The caluculation has to be considered, namely, (a) the income of deceased; (b) then add future loss of income (c) then deduct the personal expenses of deceased as per dependents; (d) add multiplier as per age of deceased not that of dependents; (e) add non pecuniary damages; and (f) interest as per provisions of Section 171 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and if there is negligence attributable to deceased, no deduction. The total compensation payable to the appellants in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is computed herein below:
i. Income Rs.10,617/- p.m.
ii. Percentage towards future prospects (50%) : Rs.5,308/- (rounded up)
iii. Total income : Rs.10,617/- +Rs.5,308/- = Rs.15,925/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses : Rs.7,962/-(rounded up)
v. Annual income : Rs.7,962/- x 12 = Rs.95,544/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 17
vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.95,544/- x 17 = Rs.16,24,248/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.70,000/-
ix. Total compensation : Rs.16,94,248/-
7. 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."
8. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
9. 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 be passed.
10. 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 has to be apportioned in every financial year to financial year basis and if the interest payable to claimant for any financial year exceeds taxable limits, 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.
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-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.
12. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. The Registrar General is requested to forward the Judgment to learned Presiding Authority of the Tribunal so that such glaring errors are not committed in future.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Ram Murti