Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1664 of 2014 Appellant :- Smt. Rajrani And 5 Others Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar Misra And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Kishor Gupta,Shiv Shankar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari,Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
(Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Cause shown for the delay is sufficient, hence, the delay is condoned.
4. This application, accordingly stands allowed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 A.N. Mishra
Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1664 of 2014 Appellant :- Smt. Rajrani And 5 Others Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar Misra And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Kishor Gupta,Shiv Shankar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari,Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
1. Heard Shri Shiv Shankar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Delay in filing the appeal has been condoned vide order of date passed on delay condonation application, though vehemently objected by Shri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents.
3. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 19.4.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, (S.C & S.T. Act), Hamirpur, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.108 of 2009 awarding a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.
4. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income the deceased which is required to 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 amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement. It is also submitted that as the deceased was survived by his parents, widow, two minor children and one major child, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently objected the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement rather the multiplier awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and it is required to be reduced.
7. Having heard the counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 25.11.2008 causing death of Pancham @ Pancha who was 44 years of age and left behind him, parents, his widow, two minor children and one major child. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.1250/- per month as he was owner of Sawmill skilled labour by profession which is not just and proper, The deceased was owner of Sawmill skilled labour by profession even if we consider the minimum wages of a labourer in the year 2008 and even if we go by the recent judgment of the Apex Court wherein it has been held that minimum wage would be made applicable which we are considering to be Rs.3,000/- per month, which we feel is just and proper. To which as the deceased was age bracket of 40-50 years, 25% of the income will have to be added as future prospects in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. As far as deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, it should be 1/4th as the deceased had six persons to feed.
8. Hence, 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.3000/- p.m.
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 25% namely Rs.750/-
iii. Total income : Rs. 3000 + 750 = Rs.3750/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/4th : Rs.2800/-
v. Annual income : Rs.2800 x 12 = Rs.33,600/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 14 (as the deceased was in the age bracket of 40-50 years)
vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.33,600 x 14 = Rs.4,70,400/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.70,000/-
ix. Total compensation : Rs.5,40,400/-
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 respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount along with additional 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.
11. 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 restic villagers.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that the matter is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 A.N. Mishra