Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1104 of 2021 Appellant :- Smt. Omwati And Another Respondent :- Shri Ashwani Kumar And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Deo Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- S.K. Mehrotra,S.K. Mehrotra,Sushil Kumar Mehrotra
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
1. Heard Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants, Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for insurance company and perused the impugned judgment and award.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the appellants, challenges the judgment and award dated 24.01.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Muzaffar Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 566 of 2013 (Smt. Omwati and anotherVs. SriAswani Kumar and others).
3. This is claimant’s appeal. Appellant no.1-Smt. Omwati is the mother of the deceased and appellant no. 2-Shri Subhas Chand is the father of the deceased.
4. It is submitted by Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants that 03.10.2013 at about 11.00 am in the morning, when the accident took place, the deceased-Manoj Kumar @ Monu was driving his own motorcycle. The deceased was engaged with the personal vocation of repairing mobile. He is survived by his mother and father, who are appellants no.1 and 2. The counsel for claimant-appellants submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side, which would be Rs.4500/- per month. It is further submitted that the amount granted under non-pecuniary head is on the lower side and it should be as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is also submitted that the deceased was bachelor, hence deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2. It is further submitted that grant of interest as per U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules,1998 is bad and it should be 7.5% as per the judgment of Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that it is true that the deceased was running mobile repairing shop but it cannot be said that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It is submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is wholly just and proper and it does not call for any interference by this Court. It is also submitted that multiplier granted is just and proper. It is further submitted that in absence of any proof about the income, the court has relied on judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 hence the income considered by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is submitted that when the decision in Sarla Verma (supra) holding that plea, which did not submit future prospects for non salaried person or self employed person, however, it is submitted that it came to the Court to decide the anomaly.
5. We have heard the parties.
6. We consider that income of Rs. 3,000/- is on lower side, which should be Rs. 4,500/- as the deceased was running mobile repairing shop. The deceased was aged about 22 years as the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050, 40% would have to be added. We agree with learned counsel for the Insurance Company that deduction of 1/2 is just and proper. As far as multiplier is concerned, it would be 18. As far as non pecuniary damages are concerned, it would be Rs. 70,000/-.
7. Hence, the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal would stand re-modified and the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:
i. Income Rs.4,500/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% (Rs.2700/-)
iii. Total income : Rs.4,500 + 2,700 = Rs.7200/-/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses : Rs.3,600/-
v. Annual income : Rs.3,600 x 12 = Rs.43,200/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 18
vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.43200 x 18 = Rs.7,77,600/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.70,000/-
ix. Total compensation : Rs.7,77,600/-+70,000 = 847600/-
8. 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."
9. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
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%. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
DEDUCTIONS OF INCOME TAX FROM THE COMPENSATION AWARDED:
11. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 and this High Court, 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 claimants in their proportion 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 exceed Rs.50,000/- in any financial year, the deduction is not permissible, registry of the Tribunal is directed to allow the claimants 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) and in First Appeal From Order No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021 while disbursing the amount.
DISBURSEMENT BY TRIBUNAL:
12. The claimants being major and not an illiterate person the judgment of A.V. Padma Vs. Venugopal, [2012(1) GLH (SC), 442] will be followed.
13. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Prajapati