# Deepak Sharma v. Shri Jitendra Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 483
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-11
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 143 of 2016
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-sharma-v-shri-jitendra-singh-ors-48546
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Claim - Obligation of vehicle at the inter
junction, where two road crossing each
other - Tribunal found the deceased sole
negligent and car driver not negligent -
Validity challenged - Held, the law is well
settled that at interception or inter
junction, it is the duty of the vehicle,
coming on the highway from intercepting
road to slow down the vehicle and to see
on all sides more particularly, his right and
left side to ensure whether any vehicle is
coming on the highway - High Court
overruled the finding of Tribunal and held
both drivers of the car and motorcycle,
were co-authors of the accident and have
contributed to the accident - High Court
re-computed the compensation by adding
15% future loss and applying multiplier of
9 and awarded 7.5% interest. (Para 12,
13, 20 and 21)

B. Motor Accident Claim - Rash and
negligent driving - Term 'Negligence' -
Meaning - Principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' ,
when it can be applied - Negligence
means failure to exercise care towards
others which a reasonable and prudent
person would in a circumstance or taking
action which such a reasonable person
would
not.
Negligence
can
be
both
intentional or accidental though it is
normally accidental - If the injury rather
death is caused by something owned or
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
controlled by the negligent party then he
is directly liable otherwise the principle of
"res ipsa loquitur" meaning thereby "the
things speak for itself" would apply. (Para
8)
C. Motor Accident Claim - Principle of
contributory negligence - Scope and
meaning
-
A
person
who
either
contributes or is co author of the accident
would be liable for his contribution to the
accident having taken place. (Para 9)
D. 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 25)
Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

5 All. Deepak Sharma Vs. Shri Jitendra Singh & Ors.
483
4
Deducting
1/4th
towards
personal
expenses

Rs.75600 x 25% = Rs.18900/-
After deduction
Rs.75600-Rs.18900 = Rs.56700/-
5
Applying
multiplier
of
'17' at the age
between 26 to
30 as per Sarla
Verma's case

Rs.56700 x 17= Rs.9,63,900/-
6
Amount under
the
conventional
heads [loss of
estate
Rs.16,500/-,
loss
of
consortium
Rs.45,000/-
(each
of
dependents);
Rs.45,000 x 5 =
Rs.2,25,000/-
and
funeral
expenses
Rs.16,500/-) as
per
Pranay
Sethi (Supra)]

Rs.16,500
+
Rs.2,25,000
+
Rs.16,500 =Rs.2,58,000/-
7
Total amount of
compensation
payable to the
dependents
of
the deceased
Rs.9,63,900 + Rs.2,58,000/- =
Rs.12,21,900/-

29. Thus, in Writ-C No.1002174 of
2015, the petitioners are entitled for
payment of compensation of Rs.12,21,900/-
along with interest @ 6% from the date of
accident i.e. 12.10.2011 up to actual
payment/ realization.

30. For the reasons recorded above,
both the writ petitions are disposed off.
----------

(2022)05ILR A483
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.05.2022

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

FAFO No. 143 of 2016

Deepak Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
Shri Jitendra Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Jagdish Prasad Tripathi, Sri A.D.
Saunders

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ankur Tandon

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Claim - Obligation of vehicle at the inter
junction, where two road crossing each
other - Tribunal found the deceased sole
negligent and car driver not negligent -
Validity challenged - Held, the law is well
settled that at interception or inter
junction, it is the duty of the vehicle,
coming on the highway from intercepting
road to slow down the vehicle and to see
on all sides more particularly, his right and
left side to ensure whether any vehicle is
coming on the highway - High Court
overruled the finding of Tribunal and held
both drivers of the car and motorcycle,
were co-authors of the accident and have
contributed to the accident - High Court
re-computed the compensation by adding
15% future loss and applying multiplier of
9 and awarded 7.5% interest. (Para 12,
13, 20 and 21)

B. Motor Accident Claim - Rash and
negligent driving - Term 'Negligence' -
Meaning - Principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' ,
when it can be applied - Negligence
means failure to exercise care towards
others which a reasonable and prudent
person would in a circumstance or taking
action which such a reasonable person
would
not.
Negligence
can
be
both
intentional or accidental though it is
normally accidental - If the injury rather
death is caused by something owned or
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
controlled by the negligent party then he
is directly liable otherwise the principle of
"res ipsa loquitur" meaning thereby "the
things speak for itself" would apply. (Para
8)
C. Motor Accident Claim - Principle of
contributory negligence - Scope and
meaning
-
A
person
who
either
contributes or is co author of the accident
would be liable for his contribution to the
accident having taken place. (Para 9)
D. 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 25)
Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Smt. Meenakshi Srivastava Vs Dheeraj
Pandey & ors. 2022 0 Supreme (All) 318
decided on 11.03.2022
2. First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012;
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.
Renu Singh & ors. decided by Allahabad High
Court on 19.7.2016
3. Archit Saini & anr. Vs Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd.; AIR 2018 SC 1143
4. Bithika Mazumdar & anr. Vs Sagar Pal & ors.
(2017) 2 SCC 748
5. Vimla Devi & ors. Vs National Insurance Co.
Ltd. & anr.; (2019) 2 SCC 186
6. F.A.F.O. No. 1999 of 2007; Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Ummida Begum &
ors.
7. F.A.F.O. No. 1404 of 1999; Smt. Ragini Devi
& ors. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.
decided on 17.4.2019
8. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan & ors.
2013 (3) TAC, 6 (SC)
9. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050
10. Smt. Manjuri Beri Vs Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd.; AIR 2007 SC 1474
11. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corp.
& anr.; 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)
12. A.VsPadma Vs Venugopal; 2012 (1) GLH
(SC) 442
13. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2007(2) GLH 291
14. Review Application No. 1 of 2020 in First
Appeal From Order No. 23 of 2001; Smt.
Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
15. First Appeal From Order No. 2871 of 2016;
Tej Kumari Sharma Vs Chola Mandlam M.S.
General
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
decided
on
19.3.2021
16. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Vs U.O.I. & ors. decided by Apex Court on
27.1.2022
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

(Oral Judgment by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal challenges the
judgement and order of MACT/Special
Judge E.C. Act, Meerut dated 13.10.2015
in MACP No.1276 of 2012 (Deepak
Sharma Vs. Jitendra Singh and others), by
which the claim petition filed by appellant
was dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a
claim petition was filed by appellant before
the learned Tribunal on account of death of
5 All. Deepak Sharma Vs. Shri Jitendra Singh & Ors.
485
father of the appellant Brahm Swarup
Sharma in a road accident. As per
averments in the petition, on 05.08.2012 at
about 3:00 pm, the deceased was going
from Meerut to Sardhna by his motorcycle
bearing No.UP 15 Q 5760. When he
reached by pass road Khirwa crossing, a
car bearing No.DL 7 CC 2323 which was
coming from the side of Haridwar and was
being driven rashly and negligently by its
driver dashed into the motorcycle of the
deceased. In this accident, the deceased
sustained fatal injuries and died. The age of
the deceased was 58 years. The deceased
was serving in Custom and Central Excise
Department and was also getting pension
due to being an ex-army man.

4. Learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that learned Tribunal
held that in the aforesaid accident the
deceased was himself 100% negligent and
the car driver was not negligent at all.
Learned counsel submitted that there is
crossing on the spot of the accident. The
car driver was driving the car at a very high
speed while the deceased was standing on
his motorcycle on the side of the road. The
car driver hit the motorcycle because he
was
driving
rashly
and
negligently.
Learned counsel attracted our attention
towards the testimony of PW2, who is eyewitness of the accident and submitted that
the eye-witness PW-2 has also stated that
the
deceased
was
standing
on
his
motorcycle on the side of the road and the
car driver dashed into the motorcycle due
to high speed. In this way, the car driver
was sole negligent but the learned Tribunal
did not appreciate the evidence in right
perspective. Learned counsel for the
appellant relied on the judgement of this
Court, penned by one of us, Smt.
Meenakshi
Srivastava
Vs.
Dheeraj
Pandey and others 2022 0 Supreme (All)
318 decided on 11.03.2022.

5. It is next submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the
deceased was in service in Central Excise
Department, Meerut from where he was
getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month.
The deceased was ex-army man and he was
getting pension also nearly Rs.7,000/- per
month. The age of the deceased was 58
years as per his service book record.

6. Learned insurance company
vehemently opposed the submissions made
by the appellant and submitted that at the
time of accident the deceased came from
the side road, which was crossing the
highway, hence, it was duty of the deceased
to see right and left side of the highway to
make sure that no vehicle is coming from
either side and after taking aforesaid
precaution, he should have crossed the
highway but he did not take such
precaution. It is also submitted that eyewitness PW2 has given false evidence that
the deceased was standing on motorcycle
on the side of the road but as per the siteplan, the place of the accident is shown in
middle of the road. Moreover, there was no
indicating board or red light at the crossing,
which could caution the vehicle running on
the highway. Hence, the learned Tribunal
has rightly held that the car driver was not
negligent and the deceased was sole author
of the accident. Hence, there is no illegality
or infirmity in the impugned judgement
which calls for any interference by this
Court.

7. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, let us consider the
negligence from the perspective of the law
laid down.
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. The term negligence means
failure to exercise care towards others
which a reasonable and prudent person
would in a circumstance or taking action
which such a reasonable person would not.
Negligence can be both intentional or
accidental which is normally accidental.
More particularly, it connotes reckless
driving and the injured must always prove
that the either side is negligent. If the injury
rather death is caused by something owned
or controlled by the negligent party then he
is directly liable otherwise the principle of
"res ipsa loquitur" meaning thereby "the
things speak for itself" would apply.

9. The principle of contributory
negligence has been discussed time and
again. A person who either contributes or
author of the accident would be liable for
his contribution to the accident having
taken place.

10. The Division Bench of this
Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818
of 2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And Others)
decided on 19.7.2016 has held as under:

 "16. Negligence means failure
to exercise required degree of care and
caution expected of a prudent driver.
Negligence
is
the
omission
to
do
something which a reasonable man,
guided upon the considerations, which
ordinarily regulate conduct of human
affairs, would do, or doing something
which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do. Negligence is not always a
question of direct evidence. It is an
inference to be drawn from proved facts.
Negligence is not an absolute term, but is
a relative one. It is rather a comparative
term. What may be negligence in one
case may not be so in another. Where
there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no
legal consequence. Where there is a duty
to exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen likely to
caused physical injury to person. The
degree of care required, of course,
depends upon facts in each case. On
these broad principles, the negligence of
drivers is required to be assessed.
 17. It would be seen that burden
of proof for contributory negligence on
the part of deceased has to be discharged
by the opponents. It is the duty of driver
of the offending vehicle to explain the
accident. It is well settled law that at
intersection where two roads cross each
other, it is the duty of a fast moving
vehicle to slow down and if driver did not
slow down at intersection, but continued
to proceed at a high speed without caring
to notice that another vehicle was
crossing, then the conduct of driver
necessarily leads to conclusion that
vehicle was being driven by him rashly as
well as negligently.

18. 10th Schedule appended to
Motor
Vehicle
Act
contain
statutory
regulations for driving of motor vehicles
which also form part of every Driving
License. Clause-6 of such Regulation
clearly directs that the driver of every
motor vehicle to slow down vehicle at every
intersection or junction of roads or at a
turning of the road. It is also provided that
driver of the vehicle should not enter
intersection or junction of roads unless he
makes sure that he would not thereby
endanger
any
other
person.
Merely,
because driver of the Truck was driving
vehicle on the left side of road would not
absolve him from his responsibility to slow
down vehicle as he approaches intersection
of roads, particularly when he could have
5 All. Deepak Sharma Vs. Shri Jitendra Singh & Ors.
487
easily seen, that the car over which
deceased was riding, was approaching
intersection.

19. In view of the fast and
constantly increasing volume of traffic,
motor vehicles upon roads may be
regarded to some extent as coming within
the principle of liability defined in Rylands
V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From
the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of
this country have been rendered by the use
of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit
and run' cases where drivers of motor
vehicles who have caused accidents, are
unknown. In fact such cases are increasing
in number. Where a pedestrian without
negligence on his part is injured or killed
by a motorist, whether negligently or not,
he or his legal representatives, as the case
may be, should be entitled to recover
damages if principle of social justice
should have any meaning at all.

20. These provisions (section
110A and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are
not merely procedural provisions. They
substantively affect the rights of the parties.
The right of action created by Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species,
new in its quality, new in its principles. In
every way it was new. The right given to
legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file
an application for compensation for death
due to a motor vehicle accident is an
enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged
in by limitations of an action under Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and
new dangers require new strategies and
new remedies.

21. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that even if
courts may not by interpretation displace
the principles of law which are considered
to be well settled and, therefore, court
cannot dispense with proof of negligence
altogether in all cases of motor vehicle
accidents, it is possible to develop the law
further on the following lines; when a
motor
vehicle
is
being
driven
with
reasonable care, it would ordinarily not
meet with an accident and, therefore, rule
of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence
may be invoked in motor accident cases
with greater frequency than in ordinary
civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob
Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0
ACJ(SC) 1840).

22. By the above process, the
burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on
the defendants in a motor accident claim
petition to prove that motor vehicle was
being driven with reasonable care or that
there is equal negligence on the part the
other side."
 (Emphasis added )

11.

We
have
perused
the
judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Archit Saini & another Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2018 SC 1143
but we have to appreciate entire evidence
on record, documentary evidence as well as
oral. There are discrepancies between the
site-plan and oral evidence of PW2. As per
the testimony of PW2, at the time of
accident the deceased was not driving the
vehicle in the middle of road but was
standing on his motorcycle on the side of
the road. While, the spot/place of impact of
the accident is shown to be in the middle of
the road in the site-plan.

12. It is an admitted fact that the
offending car was running on the highway
and the deceased was crossing or about to
cross the highway from the intercepting
road. This law is well settled that at
interception or inter junction namely,
where two roads cross each other, it is the
duty of the vehicle, coming on the highway
from intercepting road to slow down the
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vehicle and to see on all sides more
particularly, his right and left side to ensure
whether any vehicle is coming on the
highway or leaving the other road and
entering the intersection so as to cross the
road from either side which could endanger
either of them. The case on hand, it seems
that the deceased did not take aforesaid
precaution because at the time of accident,
the deceased was in the middle of the road
while crossing the highway. Although, the
deceased should have been more cautious,
it was equally the duty of the car driver
who was driving a bigger vehicle to slow
down his vehicle when he was approaching
the cross road, because any vehicle or
pedestrian could come from either side of
the intercepting road. Hence, in such a
situation, duty is cast on the drivers of the
both the vehicles but the degree of caution
is higher on the part of the person
approaching
on
the
highway
from
intercepting road in comparison to the
person, driving on the highway because
vehicles generally move at higher speed on
the highways. Hence, merely because the
driver of the car was driving on the left side
of the road would not absolve him from his
responsibility to slow down the car when
he was approaching the interception of the
roads. We do not concur with the
submissions of learned counsel for the
insurance company that there was no
indicating board or red light at the crossing,
because the driver of the car could easily
see
from
a
distance
that
there
is
intercepting road ahead of him. Hence, he
was also duty bound to slow down the car,
but he did not take such precautions. It is
also pertinent to mention that the car driver,
who is the best witness, has not stepped
into the witness box to explain the accident.

13. In view of the above, we
cannot concur with the learned judge of the
Tribunal that the deceased was solely
negligent and car driver was not rash and
negligent. We are of the considered opinion
that drivers of the car and motorcycle, both
were co-authors of the accident and have
contributed to the accident and there is
negligence on part of both the drivers. We
hold the deceased to be equally negligent
namely 50% negligent and the driver of the
car to be 50% negligent as the deceased
was coming from the smaller road and
required to be cautious while entering the
inter junction of roads, deceased also was
negligent though it is opined by PW2 to
have stopped at interjection but the speed
shows that he was also eqaully careless.

14. The next issue which arises is
regarding compensation and liability of the
respondents and liability to compensate the
appellant. While pondering over the matter
the question is should the matter be sent to
tribunal for deciding quantum as for
liability the tribunal has returned the
finding that there is no breach of policy nor
is there anything proved by insurance
company to prove to the contrary the fact
that the matter has remained pending for
long, namely 7 years, the record and
proceedings are before this Court and the
matter whether be remanded to the
Tribunal or decided here? The answer is in
the affirmative. We place reliance on the
judgments of the Apex Court in Bithika
Mazumdar and another Vs. Sagar Pal
and others, (2017) 2 SCC 748, Vimla
Devi and others Vs. National Insurance
Company Limited and another, (2019) 2
SCC 186 and of this Court in F.A.F.O. No.
1999 of 2007 (Oriental Insurance Company
Limited vs. Smt. Ummida Begum and
others) and in F.A.F.O. No. 1404 of 1999
(Smt. Ragini Devi and others Vs. United
India Insurance Company Limited and
another) decided on 17.4.2019 wherein it
5 All. Deepak Sharma Vs. Shri Jitendra Singh & Ors.
489
has been held that if the record is with the
appellate Court, it can decide compensation
instead of relegating the parties to the
Tribunal.

15. Hence, as far as quantum is
concerned, after hearing the learned
counsel for both the parties and perusal of
the record, we find that the deceased was
in service in Central Excise Department
in Meerut. It is also on record that the
deceased was ex-army man and he was
getting pension also. The pay slip of the
deceased is issued by Assistant Chief
Accountant of Customs and Central
Excise Department, Meerut, which is
paper
No.25
Ga/2.
Although,
no
concerned employee/accountant of the
department has appeared before learned
Tribunal with salary record, yet the salary
slip cannot be disbelieved because it is
filed in record by the Commissioner,
Central Excise Meerut-I in response to
the information, sought under Right to
Information Act. The net amount of the
salary was Rs.15,169/- in which the
component of provident fund Rs.8,500/-
would be added as per judgement of
Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore
Dan and others, 2013 (3) TAC, 6 (SC).
Hence, the total payable salary comes
Rs.15,169+ Rs.8,500 = Rs.23,669/-. It is
pertinent to mention that this pay slip
pertains to the last full month salary of
the deceased prior to accident which the
deceased received. Apart from salary slip,
the pass book of the deceased paper
No.23 Ga/5 is also on record, which is
said to be pension pass book or the pass
book in which the pension of the
deceased was being credited. The perusal
of this pass book shows that he has
received Rs.6934 as last pension. Hence,
total income of the deceased by way of
salary
and
pension
comes
to
Rs.23,669+Rs.6,934=Rs.30,603/-
per
month which is rounded up at Rs.30,000/-
per month.

16. As per the judgement of
Hon'ble the Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC)
1050 the deceased was a salaried person
and within the age bracket of 50-60 years,
hence, 15% would be added to his
salaried
income
only,
because
the
aforesaid judgement of Pranay Sethi
(supra) provides for future prospects to
the tune of 15% for the persons who are
in the permanent job or are selfemployed. The deceased was receiving
pension but as the son is married and
daughters are married and his wife has
predeceased him the amount of pension
would have been spent by him and the
amount would not increase as it would
stop with his demise, hence, on the
component of pension, no future loss of
income can be calculated or granted.

17. When we scanned through the
record, we noted that the appellant/claimant
has deposed as PW1 and in his crossexamination, he has deposed that the
deceased is survived by three daughters and
the appellant but the appellant has not made
the daughters as party to the claim petition
and the learned Tribunal has also lost sight
to this fact. Hence, we take it to ourselves
to take care of the compensation payable to
the sisters of the appellant would be
entitled to compensation also in view of the
Judgement of Apex court reported in Smt.
Manjuri Beri Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 1474 as they are legal
representative of deceased.

18. As far as the deduction
towards personal expenses of the deceased
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
are concerned, as per the testimony of
appellant PW1, his mother has predeceased
his father. Appellant has also deposed that
he is in service and getting salary at
Rs.15,000/- per month. He has three sisters
and all of them are married. Hence it can
safely be assumed that the sisters were not
dependent on father. In such a situation, we
consider it appropriate to deduct 1⁄2 for
personal expenses of the deceased and the
amount of pension would be spent on
himself we cannot deduct 3⁄4 as submitted
by learned counsel for respondent.

19. The copy of the service book
shows the date of birth of the deceased as
01.07.1954. Hence, at the time of accident,
the deceased was of 58 years old. Hence, as
per the judgement of Smt. Sarla Verma vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2)
TAC 677 (SC)] multiplier of 9 would be
applied.

20. Hence, the total compensation,
in view of the above discussions, payable
to the appellant-claimant is being computed
herein below:

i.
Total
income
(salary +
pension)

Rs.30,000/-

ii.
Percentag
e towards
FutureProspects
(on
income
from
salary
Rs.23,66
9/- only)
15%

Rs.3,550/-
iii.
Total
Income
Rs.30,000/
-
Rs.33,550/-

+Rs.3,550/
-

iv.
Income
after 1/2
deduction
for
personal
expenses

Rs.33,500/
-
-
Rs.16,775/
-
Rs.16,775/-
v.
Annual
income

Rs.16,775/
- x 12
Rs.2,01,30
0/-

vi.
Multiplie
r
applicabl
e

9

vii
.
Loss
of
dependen
cy

Rs.2,01,30
0/- x 9
Rs.18,11,7
00/-

vii
i.
Payable
amount
after
deduction
of
50%
for
contribut
ory
negligenc
e
Rs.18,11,7
00Rs.9,05,85
0
Rs.9,05,85
0/-

21. The three daughters of the
deceased, who are married as per testimony
of the appellant, would get Rs.50,000/-
each and the rest amount of compensation
would be paid to the appellant with interest,
which would be 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the
date of depositing the amount by the
Insurance
Company
respondent
No.2.
Insurance Company shall deposit the
amount of compensation within 12 weeks
from
today.
5 All. Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Mohd. Raza (Ins. 21/1153432)
491
22. Considering the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of A.V. Padma Vs. Venugopal
reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the
order of investment is not passed because
applicants/claimants are neither illiterate
nor rustic villagers.

23. In view of the above, the
appeal is partly allowed.

24. Fresh award be drawn
accordingly by the Tribunal as per
modification made herein.

20. In view of the ratio laid down
by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case
of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
[2007(2) GLH 291] and this High Court in
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 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)
and in First Appeal From Order No.2871 of
2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola
Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co.
Ltd.)
decided
on
19.3.2021
while
disbursing the amount.
21. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Privae Ltd. vs. 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.
Since long time has elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Bank Account of
claimant(s) in a nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.
----------
(2022)05ILR A491
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

FAFO No. 432 of 1993

Employees State Insurance Corporation
 ...Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Raza (Ins. 21/1153432)
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajesh Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Neeraj Agarwal, Sri R.K. Mishra

Civil Law - Employees' State Insurance
Act, 1948 - Medical Board issued a
certificate awarding Nil loss of earning
capacity to the injured-claimant - injured
suffered employment injuries on his left
eye - Judge, Employees Insurance Court in
Appeal allowed the appeal upturning the
decision of the medical board - Held -
finding of fact is that the injured was an
employee who had sustained employment
injury and was incapacitated to the tune
of 30%, percentage of injury was decided
by the Commissioner - Court cannot