Honourable Subhash Chand,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the judgment and order impugned and documents annexed and record of Tribunal.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 3.9.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 511 of 2011 awarding a sum of Rs.3,93,500/- with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing the claim petition till date of award as compensation.
3. Facts in brevity are that on 27.4.2011 at about 3.30 pm deceased Durga Shankar Dwivedi was going to Meerut from Delhi boarding in a Bus having registration no. UP 11 T 2698. When the bus reached in front of Modi Nagar Tehsil, driver of truck having registration no. UP 12 T 4503, coming from Meerut side, being driven rashly and negligently dashed the bus on account of which the persons in bus were injured badly. Deceased also got injured badly. He was got admitted in Jaswant Rai Hospital, Meerut where he died on 28.4.2011 at about 12.15 pm during treatment.
4. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondents have not challenged the liability imposed on them. Only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 45 years of age at the time of accident. He was working in Emerald Jwellers Industry India Ltd. as Sales Associate from where he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per mensem, but, the Tribunal assessed his income to be Rs.3,000/- arbitrarily. It is further submitted that no amount was granted 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). Hence, award of the Tribunal may be enhanced.
6. As against this, Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate ably assisted by Sri Parihar, submitted that the income considered by the court below to be Rs.3,000/- is just and proper. It is submitted that future prospect could not have been granted as Judgment of Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 was a binding precedent when the award was pronounced as deceased was not in permanent employment silent on it. Loss of dependency is just and proper. It is further submitted that non pecuniary damages granted are as per Rule 220 A of the U.P.S.R.T.C. Rate of interest should be 6 percent or as granted by Tribunal.
7. Sri Jag Ram Singh, learned counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. submitted that bus of the U.P.S.R.T.C. has been exonerated as driver of the vehicle was held to be not negligent.
8. It is submitted by counsel for appellants that the finding of fact that the evidence of P.W. is not trustworthy and is fallacious and strict proof of civil pleadings could not be applied so as to hold otherwise tthough salary slip is produced which is corroborated by the bank account of the deceased just to hold that whether the officer had authoritty to sign or not is bad in view of the precedents, i.e., amount of salary or not has gone too for in negating the evidence on record by misreading the same, this finding is bad.
9. We have considered the factual data and submissions. We have perused Ext. 50/G, 10G, 54 G, 10 C 54C/4 and the evidence of P.W. 2. We are satisfied that deceased was officer and was in employment. His income can be considered at least to be Rs.10,000/- in the year of accident to which as he was 35 years of age, 40% will have to be added under the head of future prospect as he was in private job. Rs.70,000/- is awarded under the head of non pecuniary damages with increase of 10 per cent for three years from the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra).
10. The total compensation payable is recalculated and is computed herein below:
i. Income Rs.10,000/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.4,000/-
iii. Total income : Rs.10,000 +4,000 = Rs.14,000/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/3: Rs.9,334/-
v. Annual income : Rs.9,334 x 12 = Rs.1,12,008/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 16 vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.1,12,008 x 16 = Rs.1792128/-
viii. Amount under non-pecuniary head : Rs.70,000/-+Rs.30,000/-=1,00,000/-
ix. Total compensation :Rs.18,92,128/-
11. 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."
12. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
13. 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 be passed looking to the status of applicants.
14. 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/- then only 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 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) while disbursing the amount.
15. 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.
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.
17. Record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Ram Murti