Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2442 of 2009 Appellant :- Guddi Devi Respondent :- Sunil Kumar And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Komal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 15.04.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/A.D.J. XII, Allahabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 191 of 2007 awarding a sum of Rs. 3,76,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is compensation awarded by Tribunal which is challenged by claimants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the income of the deceased which was granted by the Tribunal is bad and is requires to be re-assessed and that 25% should be added as future loss of income of the deceased in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105. It is submitted that the deceased has left behind him wife, 2 major sons and one minor daughter. It is further submitted that under non-pecuniary heads, the claimants are entitled to at least Rs.70,000/- and that the interest at the rate of 7.5% should be awarded.
5. As against this, Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that for a proprietor of brick-kiln the income as assessed by the Tribunal is correct. It is also submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of the Court. It is further submitted that multiplier should be 14 and not 15 as per the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after perusing the judgment and order impugned, we do not disturb the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/-. Since the deceased was in the age bracket of 36 - 40 years, 40% will have to be added. As he has 2 major sons and one minor daughter, the deduction of 1/3rd is just and proper. The multiplier would be 14 to which Rs. 70,000/- + 10% enhancement would be payable to the appellants in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is computed herein below:
i. Income Rs.3,000/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.1,200/-
iii. Total income : Rs. 3,000 + 1,200 = Rs. 4,200/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd : Rs. 2,800/-
v. Annual income : Rs.2,800 x 12 = Rs.33,600/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 14
vii. Loss of dependency: Rs. 33,600 x 14 = Rs. 4,70,400/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/-
x. Total compensation : Rs. 5,70,400/-
7. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, the interest 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. 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 with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
10. 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.
11. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguti 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.
12. It is conveyed by Sri Komal Mehrotra that to his knowledge, the owner had not appeared and has no right to challenge the recovery.
13. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein.
14. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter is disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Irshad