Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1352 of 2014 Appellant :- Karnail Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- Smt. Poonam Goyal And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.D. Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- Pawan Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
(Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application)
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. This appeal was filed in the year 2014. As far as delay is concerned, Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company has submitted that this Court can take practical view in condoning the delay.
3. The Tribunal did not grant any amount under the head of future loss of income as per the law prevailing in those days.
4. Appellant took steps in the year 2018 and that may be also considered while condoning the delay and hearing the main matter. Be that as it may, delay condoned.
5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021/Mukesh
Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1352 of 2014 Appellant :- Karnail Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- Smt. Poonam Goyal And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.D. Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- Pawan Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
1. As such this appeal is of the year 2014 if we does not take up the matter for final disposal today, the insurance company may be saddled with the interest which they may have to pay, may be after 2014.
2. We take up this matter for final disposal today itself by consent of learned Advocate as the compensation granted is not as per law settled.
3. As far as the accident is concerned, the owner and the insurance company have not challenged the same. The insurance also being in vogue on the date of accident is also proved before the Tribunal which has attend finality. As far as period is considered, the insurance company nor the owner have came up before this Court. The only dispute which is now to be decided in this appeal is about the quantum, deductions and interest granted to appellants.
4. This takes us to the compensation awarded to the appellants under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and, therefore, the Tribunal was under an obligation even as per the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011 to add the future loss of income which was unfortunately not done.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of accident and was a agriculturist, his income was considered by the Tribunal to be Rs.36,000/- per year which according to the counsel for the appellant is on the lower side and should be considered at least Rs.60,000/- per year. 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).
6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the income of the deceased was not proved cannot be granted as prayed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any enhancement. It is further submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.
7. Heard the counsels for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court finds that the accident occurred on 24.10.2012 causing death of Sahab Singh who was 32 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.3,000/- per month which according to this Court, in the year of accident, would be at least Rs.4,500/- per month looking to his vocation. To which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 31- 35, 40% 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/- as 10% have to be added to Rs.70,000/- which we rounded upto a round figure of Rs.1,00,000/- in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). In view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels no interference is called for as far as deduction is concerned.
8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:
i. Annual Income Rs.54,000/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 25% namely Rs.13,500/-
iii. Total income : Rs.54,000 + 13,500 = Rs.67,500/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.22,500/-
v. Multiplier applicable : 16
vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.45,000 x 16 = Rs.7,20,000/-
vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/-
viii. Total compensation : 8,20,000/-
9. 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."
10. 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 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 award and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
11. The amount as and when deposited, 75% be released in favour of the claimants and 25% be fixed in a nationalized bank for three years.
12. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this old matter decided.
13. 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.
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. 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.
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 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 :- 30.7.2021 Mukesh