Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1378 of 2021 Appellant :- Ram Milan And Another Respondent :- Shyam Kumar Agrahari And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Deo Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
1. Heard Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 21.2.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Siddharth Nagar, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 128 of 2013 awarding a sum of Rs. 4,38,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% 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 the quantum of compensation awarded. Durga Prasad has passed away. He was a tempo driver. Except compensation, no other claim has been made out.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the income of the deceased should be considered at least Rs. 6,000/- per month and that 40% 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 further submitted that under non-pecuniary heads, the claimants are entitled to at least Rs. 30,000/- and that the interest at the rate of 7.5% should be awarded.
5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submits that for a tempo driver the income cannot be Rs. 6,000/- even in the year of accident. He submits that the Tribunal has not committed any error rather the Tribunal has awarded 40% compensation despite the fact that the accident took place in the year 2013. There is no income proof of Durga Prasad, who was the tempo driver and, therefore, according to him no enhancement as prayed for is required. 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.
6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after perusing the judgment and order impugned, his income can be considered to be Rs. 5,000/-, to which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 21 - 25 years, 40% will have to be added. Hence, the 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. 5,000/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.2,000/-
iii. Total income : Rs. 5,000 + 2,000 = Rs. 7,000/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 : Rs. 3,500/-
v. Annual income : Rs.3,500 x 12 = Rs.42,000/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 18
vii. Loss of dependency: Rs. 42,000 x 18 = Rs. 7,56,000/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs. 70,000/-
x. Total compensation : Rs. 8,26,000/-
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 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. However, for the period when the matter was delayed, the amount would be calculated subtracting the delay of 227 days for which interest shall not be paid as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Lakkamma and others Vs. The Regional Manager M/s United India Insurance Company Limited and another, AIR 2021 SC 3301. 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. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein.
13. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this matter is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Irshad