# Amit Srivastava v. Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 325
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-10
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3139 of 2016
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-srivastava-v-managing-director-u-p-s-r-t-c-ors-48524
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Claim - Determination of compensation -
Claimant's leg got shortened and he
became 80% disabled due to grievous
injuries in his leg received in the accident
- Admittedly the claimant was a MBA
student and he had potential to earn good
amount of money after getting his course
completed - High Court held the income of
the claimant at least Rs. 10,000 per month
and
accordingly
re-computed
the
compensation applying multiplier of 18
and awarded 7.5% interest - Basanti
Devi's case and Mannat Johal's case relied
upon. (Para 10, 15 and 19)
B. Civil Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 194A (3) (ix) - Withdraw of
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount of interest - Certificate of Income
Tax authority, when required - Held, if the
interest payable to any claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
Rs.
50,000/-,
insurance Co./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. (Para 17)
Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

5 All. Amit Srivastava Vs. Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors.
325

28. The appellant No. 1 would be paid
the compensation awarded for Funeral
Expenses, Loss of Estate and Loss of
Spousal Consortium with the interest
accruing on the same. Appellant Nos. 2 to 7
would be paid compensation awarded to
them for Loss of Parental Consortium with
the
interest
accruing
on
the
same.
Pecuniary damages of Rs. 6,04,800/-
quantified above alongwith the interest
accruing on the same shall be divided
equally between the appellant Nos. 2 to 7.

29. The opposite party No. 3, i.e.,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Shahjahanpur shall deposit the awarded
amount (including the interest) in the
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Shahjahanpur within three months from
today. The amount so deposited by the
National Insurance Company Limited,
Shahjahanpur shall be deposited by the
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Shahjahanpur in the highest interest
bearing fixed deposit schemes, either of
the post office or of any nationalized
bank. The receipts of the fixed deposit
shall be given to the appellants who
shall be
entitled
to withdraw
the
maturity amount when the fixed deposits
mature. The maturity amount shall be
credited by the bank/post office in any
savings account of the appellants. The
concerned bank or post office shall not
permit any loan or advance against the
fixed deposits made in favour of the
appellants.
The
Tribunal,
while
depositing the amount in any fixed
deposit scheme, shall communicate the
directions issued by this Court to the
concerned bank/post office. In case, the
opposite party No. 3 fails to deposit the
awarded amount within three months
from today, the Tribunal shall recover
the same in accordance with law.

30. With the aforesaid directions and
observations, the appeal is allowed. Parties
shall bear their own cost.

31. Office shall transmit the records
of the case to the Tribunal, at the earliest.
----------
(2022)05ILR A325
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
&
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3139 of 2016

Amit Srivastava ...Appellant
Versus
Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Adil Jamal

Counsel for the Resondents:
Sri Vivek Saran

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Claim - Determination of compensation -
Claimant's leg got shortened and he
became 80% disabled due to grievous
injuries in his leg received in the accident
- Admittedly the claimant was a MBA
student and he had potential to earn good
amount of money after getting his course
completed - High Court held the income of
the claimant at least Rs. 10,000 per month
and
accordingly
re-computed
the
compensation applying multiplier of 18
and awarded 7.5% interest - Basanti
Devi's case and Mannat Johal's case relied
upon. (Para 10, 15 and 19)
B. Civil Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 194A (3) (ix) - Withdraw of
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount of interest - Certificate of Income
Tax authority, when required - Held, if the
interest payable to any claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
Rs.
50,000/-,
insurance Co./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. (Para 17)
Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Syed Sadiq etc Vs Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Co.; 2014 Law Suit (SC) 27
2. Jithendran Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &
anr.; 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 644
3. Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Vs Satish Kumar &
ors. 2017 0 Supreme (All) 1661
4. Gangu Ram Vs Rishi Pal & anr., 2018 LawSuit
(All) 3762
5. Oriental Insurence Co. Ltd. Vs Meena Variyal
& ors. 2007(2) T.A.C. 417 (SC)
6. Meena Pawaia & ors. Vs Ashraf Ali & ors,
2021; Law Suit (SC) 743
7. Civil Appeal Nos. 7435-7436 of 2021; Basanti
Devi & anr. Vs Divisional Manager, The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. & ors.
8. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand; 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC
65725
9. Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar; (2011) 1 SCC
343
10. Sanjay Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar & anr.;
(2014) 5 SCC 330
11. Syed Sadiq & ors. Vs Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; (2014) 2 SCC
735
12. V. Mekela Vs M. Malathi & anr.; (2014) 11
SCC 178
13. Har Babu Vs Amrit Lal & ors. 2019 (2) T.A.C.
718 (AI)
14. A.V.Padma Vs Venugopal; 2012 (1) GLH 6
(SC), 442
15. Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2007(2) GLH 291
16. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors. 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the
respondent.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 06.07.2016 passed by Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/II Additional
District Judge, Banda (hereinafter referred to
as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.210 of 2014 awarding a sum of
Rs.2,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 7%
p.a. as compensation.

3. The brief facts as culled out from the
record are that on 29/30.6.2011 at around
01:50 A.M., the petitioner was travelling in
Bus No. UP 11 T 2707 from Haridwar to
Delhi,
when
the
bus
reached
near
Engineering College at Haridwar, Roorkee
Road, being driven rashly and negligently by
its driver dashed into a stationary truck. In
this
accident,
the
petitioner/appellant
sustained grievous injuries due to which he
became disabled to the tune of 80%. The
appellant was a student of MBA and earning
Rs.25,000/- p.m.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned
judgment appellants has preferred this
appeal.
5 All. Amit Srivastava Vs. Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors.
327

5. The accident is not in dispute. It is
also not in dispute that at the time of
accident the offending bus was owned by
U.P.S.R.T.C. and the driver of the bus was
having a valid and effecting driving
licence. It is also not in dispute that the bus
was being plied on the road with all
necessary documents. Hence only the issue
of quantum of compensation is to be
decided by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for appellant
submitted that a very meagre amount is
awarded by learned tribunal. Learned
counsel submitted that at the time of
accident, the appellant was studying in
MBA Course. In this accident, due to
grievous injuries in his leg, the leg got
shortened and the appellant became 80%
disabled as per the medical certificate.
Learned counsel submitted that if it would
not have happened then the appellant could
earn at least Rs.25,000/- per month, after
completing his study. But learned tribunal
did not consider this fact and assumed his
income only Rs.3,000/- per month. The
appellant is a student of B.Com (Pass) and
was doing MBA from a reputed Institution
in Dehradun. It is next submitted by
learned counsel that due to shortening of
leg, appellant is not able to walk freely and
he is not able to do his daily routine works
properly and his career prospective are also
adversely
affected
due
to
disability.
Learned counsel did not consider all this
facts. It is vehemently submitted that the
medical
board
has
issued
disability
certificate to the tune of 80% but the
learned
tribunal
has
considered
the
disability to the tune of 40% only which is
not just and proper. Learned counsel for the
appellant has relied on the decisions in (i)
Syed Sadiq etc v. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. 2014 LawSuit
(SC) 27; (ii) Jithendran v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr., 2021 0
Supreme (SC) 644; (iii) Pradeep Kumar
Tripathi v. Satish Kumar and others, 2017
0 Supreme (All) 1661; and (iv) Gangu
Ram v. Rishi Pal & Another, 2018
LawSuit (All) 3762, to contend that the
tribunal has not granted just compensation.
The calculation given by the tribunal is not
fathomed by this Court as two how for
reduction of 1 inch of lower limb the
tribunal
has
awarded
such
meagre
compensation is granted by the tribunal.
The appellant sustained serious injuries
which has caused not only physical
impairment but lot of mental trauma.

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company objected to the submissions made
by appellant and submitted that at the time
of accident, he was a student, there is no
evidence on record that he was earning any
amount. Hence, in absence of any evidence
to earnings, the learned tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the appellant at
Rs.3,000/- per month. It is also submitted
that future loss of income has to be
considered by the tribunal and grant of
multiplier of 18 does not require alteration.
It is submitted that there is no illegality and
infirmity in the impugned judgment which
calls for any interference by this Court.

8. It is an admitted fact that at the
time of accident, the appellant was a
student of MBA Course and he was also a
Commerce
Graduate. The
educational
qualification of the appellant goes to show
that he had potential to earn good amount
of
money
after
getting
his
course
completed. It is averred in claim petition
that the appellant was doing MBA Course
from an Institute in Dehradun.

9. This above fact is not controverted
by the insurance company. Keeping in view
328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the judgment of the Apex Court recently in
Oriental Insurence Company Limited
Versus Meena Variyal and others, 2007(2)
T.A.C. 417 (SC) and as per judgment in
Meena Pawaia & ors. Vs. Ashraf Ali &
ors, 2021 LawSuit (SC) 743 it is held that
potentiality to earn should be kept in mind
by the tribunal at the time of assessing the
income of the injured/deceased.

10. The educational qualifications and
family background have also to be taken
into consideration. The Apex Court in
Basanti Devi and another v. Divisional
Manager, The New India Assurance
Company Ltd. and others., Civil Appeal
Nos.7435-7436 of 2021 has held this.
Hence with regard to the educational
qualifications and potentiality of the
appellant to earn after getting the course of
MBA completed, we hold the income of the
appellant would be at least Rs.10,000/- per
month in the year of accident. Appellant
sustained grievous injuries in the accident.
Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Kajal Vs.
Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 (0)
AIJEL-SC 65725 has quoted the law laid
down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011)
1 SCC 343 in which it is held as below:-

"16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar
and Others7, this Court laid down the
heads under which compensation is to be
awarded for personal injuries.

"6. The heads under which
compensation is awarded in personal
injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary
damages
(Special
damages)

(i)Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation,
nourishing
food,
and
miscellaneous
expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other
gains) which the injured would have made
had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the
period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Nonpecuniary damages (General
damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering
and trauma as a consequence of the
injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss
of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under
heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in
serious cases of injury, where there is
specific medical evidence corroborating the
evidence
of
the
claimant,
that
compensation will be granted under any of
the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating
to loss of future earnings on account of
permanent
disability,
future
medical
expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage) and loss of
expectation of life."

11. It is also submitted that the
amount under the non-pecuniary heads and
the interest awarded are also on the lower
side and requires to be enhanced in view of
the
following
authoritative
pronouncements:

(i) Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar
and another, (2014) 5 SCC 330;

(ii) Syed Sadiq and others v.
Divisional
Manager,
United
India
Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC
735;
5 All. Amit Srivastava Vs. Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors.
329

(iii) V. Mekela v. M. Malathi and
another, (2014) 11 SCC 178; and

(iv) Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles
(Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011

(v) Har Babu v. Amrit Lal and
others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 718 (AI), these
judgments will also strengthen our view
that 25% should be add as future loss of
income.

12.
 Appellant
sustained
severe
injuries in lower part of his right leg and
the leg got shortened. Medical board under
Chief Medical Officer, Banda had issued
disability certificate to the tune of 80% for
particular part of body. Appellant was the
student of MBA, he was not doing such
type of work so as to affect his functional
disability to the tune of 80%. The learned
Tribunal
has
assessed
his
functional
disability to the tune of 40% which is just
and proper, hence we maintain it being his
whole body functional disability.

13. As far as the medical bills of the
appellant
are
concerned,
only
the
photocopies of medical bills are filed on
record and it is fairly submitted by learned
counsel for appellant before the tribunal
that original medical bills were submitted
in U.P. Gram Panchayat for that he has
received the payment from the Bank.
Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly
refused to make the payment of medical
bills.

14. The tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering which
are on the lower side, hence the appellant
shall be entitled to Rs.50,000/- for pain,
shock and suffering. Learned tribunal has
awarded Rs.10,000/- for special diet and
transportation which we maintain. The
tribunal has not awarded any sum for loss
of amenities. When the appellant has got
his right leg shortened and sustained 40%
functional
disability,
he
would
have
certainly lost some amenities in life for
which we grant Rs.50,000/-

15. On the basis of above discussions,
the amount of compensation payable to the
appellant is computed herein-below.

i. Annual Income : Rs.1,20,000/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects
:
40%
which
would
be
Rs.48,000/-

iii.
Total
income
(i+ii)
:
Rs.1,68,000/-

iv. Multiplier applicable : 18

v.
Loss
of
dependency:
(Rs.168,000 x 18)=Rs.30,24,000/-

vi. Permanent disability at the
rate of 40% = Rs.12,09,600/-

vii. For pain, shock and suffering
: Rs.50,000/-

viii. For Special diet : Rs.10,000/-

ix. For loss of amenities :
Rs.50,000/-

x. For all other non pecuniary
damages : Rs.80,000/-

xi.
Total
compensation
(vi+vii+viii+ix+x) : Rs.14,00,000/- (in
rounded figure)

16. 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 6 (SC), 442, the order of
investment is not passed because applicants
/claimants are neither illiterate nor rustic
villagers.

17. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani v/s The
330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

18. 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.

19. 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
7 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."

20. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified
to the aforesaid extent. The respondentUPSRTC 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.

21. Recently the Gujarat High Court
in case titled the Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
(TDS),
R/Special
Civil
Application
No.4800 of 2021 decided on 05.04.2022,
it is held that interest awarded by the
tribunal under Section 171 of Motor
Vehicles Act is not taxable under the
Income Tax Act, 1961.

22. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India
and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as
the purpose of keeping compensation is to
safeguard the interest of the claimants. As
10 years have elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.
5 All. Smt. Seema Devi & Ors. Vs. Haribansh & Ors.
331

23. We are thankful to learned
counsels for the parties for ably assisting
this court in getting this old appeal
disposed of.

24. Record be sent back to tribunal
below forthwith.
----------
(2022)05ILR A331
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
&
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3806 of 2007

Smt. Seema Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Haribansh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Hari Pratap Gupta

Counsel for the Resondents:
Sri Ankur Mehrotra

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Compensation
-
Rash
and
negligent
driving - 24 years old deceased was an
electrician
-
Tribunal
applied
the
multiplier of 17 - Validity challenged -
High Court re-computed the compensation
by adding 40% future prospect and
applying multiplier of 18 - Pranay Sethi's
case relied upon. (Para 7 and 10)

B. Civil Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 194A (3) (ix) - Withdraw of
amount of interest - Certificate of Income
Tax authority, when required - Held, if the
interest payable to any claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
Rs.
50,000/-,
insurance Co./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 - But 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. (Para 12)
Appeal partly allowed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Smt. Meena Pawaia & ors. Vs Ashraf Ali &
ors. 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694
2. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corp.; (2009)
6 SCC 121
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050
4. Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & anr. Vs Shyam
Kishore Murmu & anr.; 2021 (4) TAC 673
5. Smt. Meena Pawaia & ors. Vs Ashraf Ali &
ors. 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694, Basanti Devi and
Kurvan
6. Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & anr. Vs Shyam Kishore
Murmu & anr.; 2021 (4) TAC 673
7. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. [2007(2) GLH 291]
8. Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First
Appeal From Order No. 23 of 2001; Smt.
Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
9. First Appeal From Order No. 2871 of 2016;
Tej Kumari Sharma VsChola Mandlam M.S.
General
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
decided
on
19.3.2021
10. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Vs U.O.I. & ors. decided by the Apex Court on
27.1.2022
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the
claimants-appellants
against
the
judgement and award passed by Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/ Additional