Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
1. Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Advocate assisted by Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company.
2. By way of this appeal, the claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 29.7.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.26 of 2011 awarding sum of Rs.3,26,440/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6%.
3. We have not gone into the factual data except as important for our purpose namely compensation awarded. The accident is not in dispute. The deceased died out of accidental injuries is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. Hence, the dispute involved in this appeal relates to the correctness in the calculation of compensation payable to the claimants. The details of facts except for deciding compensation are not narrated.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has committed grave error in considering the income of the deceased who was a salaried person aged 59 years which is evident from the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the net income of the deceased was Rs.7,49,562/- per annum which was after the deduction of income tax.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that pension should not have been deducted from the compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and has relied on the decisions in Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 and decision of this Court in First Appeal From Order No.3010 of 2014 (Rajesh Singh and Another Vs. Margub Ali and Others), decided on 27.9.2021.
6. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of future loss of income which should be granted in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC) 613 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050.
7. The next contention is that the multiplier of 5 granted by the Tribunal is bad and it should be 9 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Supra) as the deceased was in the age bracket of 56-60 years. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the tribunal has granted only 10,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary damages which requires enhancement in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and requires to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th.
8. Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has submitted that Tribunal has not committed any error and that pension is paid to the widow who has also now passed away cannot be considered to be loss to the estate. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the multiplier granted by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not warrant any change.
9. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/2 as the deceased was survived by two major sons and father who are not the dependent on the deceased. The widow also passed away during the pendency of the appeal.
10. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we accepts the submission of learned counsel for the appellant as far as income of the deceased is concerned. The income of the deceased was Rs. 7,49,562/- after the deduction of income tax as the per the Income Tax Return for the year in which the accident took place. The decision in Vimal Kanwar (Supra) does not permit us to accept the finding of the Tribunal as far as income is concerned as the Tribunal held that the deceased was to retire in near future so his income should be considered at Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, we consider the income of the deceased to be Rs.7,49.562/- which we round up to Rs.7,50,000/- per annum.
11. As far as future loss of income is concerned, in view of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988, we grant 15% addition towards future loss of income as the deceased was below the age of 60 years and was in permanent job.
12. We would hasten to fall back on the decision in Smt. Parvati @ Baby and Others Vs. Hollu Hallappa, 1999 ACJ 344 & decision of this Court in First Appeal From Order No.1237 of 2018 (Subhadra Pandey Vs. Siddarth Agrawal) decided on 7.12.2020 wherein it has been categorically held that pension cannot be deducted from the amount admissible to the legal heirs.
13. We are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the multiplier is just and proper. It would be 9 in view of decision in Sarla Verma (Supra) as the deceased was in the age bracket of 56-60, even if we take the age of the deceased on the date of accident. As far as amount under the head of non-pecuniary damages are concerned, it should be Rs.70,000/- + 10% increase in every three years in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Therefore, we would grant Rs.80,000/- under the head of non pecuniary damages.
14. After correcting the manuscripts, we find that sons of the deceased were major even at the time of accident and they cannot be considered dependent upon the deceased. We are in agreement with learned counsel for the respondent. The widow of the deceased has passed away. Both the sons of the deceased was major at the time of accident. The father cannot be said to be dependent as per Motor Vehicles Act, hence, 1/2 has to be deducted as personal expences of the deceased.
15. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellant is computed herein below:
i. Annual Income : Rs.7,50,000/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 15% namely Rs.1,12,500/-
iii. Total income : Rs. 7,50,000 + 1,12,500 = Rs.8,62,500/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses of the deceased : Rs.4,31,000/- (round figure) v. Multiplier applicable : 9 vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.4,31,000 x 9 = Rs.38,79,000/-
vii. Amount under non pecuniary damages : Rs.80,000/-
viii. Total compensation : 39,59,000/-
16. 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."
17. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
18. 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. The Insurance Company has been given recovery right by the Tribunal. We do not disturb the same as the owner of truck is not before us.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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 judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case.
22. Record and proceedings be sent to the Tribunal.
Order Date :- 8.10.2021 DKS