# Krishna Pyare Gupta & Ors v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 39
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-14
- **Case number:** F.A.F.O. No. 2356 of 2004
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-pyare-gupta-ors-v-u-p-state-bridge-corporation-ltd-anr-47212
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - The Motor Vehicles Act,
1988
-
Section
110A,110B
-
Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 - The Income Tax Act,
1961 - Section194A (3) (ix) - multiplier -
principle of contributory negligence -
person who either contributes or author of
the accident would be liable for his
contribution to the accident having taken
place - principle of "res ipsa loquitur" -
"the
things
speak
for
itself"
-
composite/contributory negligence - The
deceased or the person concerned should
be shown to have contributed either to
the accident and the impact of accident
upon
the
victim
could
have
been
minimised if he had taken care .(Para -
8,11)

Appeal, at the behest of the claimants -
challenges judgment and award passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - awarding a
sum of Rs.8,88,608/- - interest at the rate of
6% as compensation - Tribunal deducted 30%
of the award - which is bad - deceased not the
author or the co-author of the accident having
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
taken place - not plying the vehicle which met
with accident rather he was sitting in the same -
income was Rs.12,500/- Tribunal erred in
assessing the income of the deceased to be
Rs.9,615 - Tribunal not granted any amount
towards future loss of income of the deceased.
(Para - 2,3,4)

HELD:- Deceased was not the author or the
co-author of the accident, was not plying the
vehicle. Hence, the deduction of 30% from
the compensation awarded is bad and is set
aside. Judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal shall stand modified . RespondentInsurance Company shall deposit the amount
with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the
amount is deposited. 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.(Para -11,16)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

8 All. Krishna Pyare Gupta & Ors. Vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
39
possession which can throw light on the
facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a
sound practice for those desiring to rely
upon a certain state of facts to withhold
from the Court the best evidence which is
in their possession which could throw light
upon the issues in controversy and to rely
upon the abstract doctrine of onus of
proof................."

20. It is also a material fact that the
statements
of
the
claimant
were
corroborated by the co-passenger Birbal
who appeared as P.W. 2. The deposition of
P.W. 2 is on record in which it has been
clearly stated that the bus driver had been
made aware by the deponent as well as
other co-passengers regarding the falling of
claimant off the bus, yet he ignored the
same and drove rashly and negligently
resulting in the incident and injuries.

21. The evidence on record has been
clearly considered by the Tribunal in a
cogent
and
reasonable
manner
and,
therefore, also the submissions of the
defendant-appellant regarding contributory
negligence of the claimant does not hold
any good ground.

22. In view of aforesaid, the appeal
fails and is dismissed. The parties to bear
their own costs.

23. The claimant-respondent is
granted
liberty
to
move
appropriate
application
for
withdrawal
of
the
outstanding awarded amount which shall be
paid upon such an application being made
with up to date interest.

24. The lower court record shall be
remitted to the Tribunal.
----------
(2021)08ILR A39
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2021

BEFORE

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

F.A.F.O. No. 2356 of 2004

Krishna Pyare Gupta & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Deepak Jaiswal, Akansha Gaur, Sri
Ashok Kumar Gaur

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha, Sri K.S.
Chaudhry, Sri Krishna Shanker Chaudhary,
Sri V.A. Ansari

(A) Civil Law - The Motor Vehicles Act,
1988
-
Section
110A,110B
-
Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 - The Income Tax Act,
1961 - Section194A (3) (ix) - multiplier -
principle of contributory negligence -
person who either contributes or author of
the accident would be liable for his
contribution to the accident having taken
place - principle of "res ipsa loquitur" -
"the
things
speak
for
itself"
-
composite/contributory negligence - The
deceased or the person concerned should
be shown to have contributed either to
the accident and the impact of accident
upon
the
victim
could
have
been
minimised if he had taken care .(Para -
8,11)

Appeal, at the behest of the claimants -
challenges judgment and award passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - awarding a
sum of Rs.8,88,608/- - interest at the rate of
6% as compensation - Tribunal deducted 30%
of the award - which is bad - deceased not the
author or the co-author of the accident having
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
taken place - not plying the vehicle which met
with accident rather he was sitting in the same -
income was Rs.12,500/- Tribunal erred in
assessing the income of the deceased to be
Rs.9,615 - Tribunal not granted any amount
towards future loss of income of the deceased.
(Para - 2,3,4)

HELD:- Deceased was not the author or the
co-author of the accident, was not plying the
vehicle. Hence, the deduction of 30% from
the compensation awarded is bad and is set
aside. Judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal shall stand modified . RespondentInsurance Company shall deposit the amount
with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the
amount is deposited. 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.(Para -11,16)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. National Insurance Company Limited Vs
Pranay Sethi & ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs
Smt. Renu Singh & ors., First Appeal From Order
No. 1818 of 2012

3. Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Company
Ltd. & ors., 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469

4. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation,
(2009) 6 SCC 121

5. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)

6. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Comp. Ltd., 2007(2) GLH 291

7. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.,
First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001

8. Tej Kumari Sharma Vs Chola M&lam M.S.
General Insurance Co. Ltd., First Appeal From
Order No.2871 of 2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.)

1. Heard 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 7.5.2004 passed by Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Room No.14,
Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.642 of 2001
awarding a sum of Rs.8,88,608/- with
interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The
respondent has not challenged the liability
imposed on them. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal
has deducted 30% of the award which is
bad as the deceased was not the author or
the co-author of the accident having taken
place as he was not plying the vehicle
which met with accident rather he was
sitting in the same.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant that the deceased was 31
years of age at the time of accident and was
Engineer
in
Railways.
His
income
according to the counsel for the claimants
was Rs.12,500/- and the Tribunal has erred
in assessing the income of the deceased to
be Rs.9,615. It is further submitted that the
Tribunal has not granted any amount
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
8 All. Krishna Pyare Gupta & Ors. Vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
41
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). It is
further
submitted
that
the
deduction
towards personal expenses of the deceased
should be 1/4th as he was survived by her
widow, a minor son and parents. It is also
submitted that interest should be 12%.

5. As against this, learned counsel for
the respondent has submitted that the
Tribunal cannot be said to have committed
any error in considering the income of
Rs.9165/- as the basic income of the
deceased who was Engineer in Railways
was Rs.6500/-. It is further submitted that
the Tribunal has committed an error
apparent on record in granting multiplier of
17 which should be 16 as the deceased was
31 years of age at the time of his death. It is
further submitted that the interest awarded
by the Tribunal is just and proper and does
not call for any interference.

6. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, let us consider the
negligence from the perspective of the law
laid down.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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 (sec.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

10. The Apex Court in Khenyei Vs.
New India Assurance Company Limited
8 All. Krishna Pyare Gupta & Ors. Vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
43
& Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469 has
held as under:

"4. It is a case of composite
negligence where injuries have been caused
to the claimants by combined wrongful act
of joint tort feasors. In a case of accident
caused by negligence of joint tort feasors,
all the persons who aid or counsel or direct
or join in committal of a wrongful act, are
liable. In such case, the liability is always
joint and several. The extent of negligence
of joint tort feasors in such a case is
immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of
the plaintiff/claimant and need not be
determined by the by the court. However, in
case all the joint tort feasors are before the
court, it may determine the extent of their
liability for the purpose of adjusting interse equities between them at appropriate
stage. The liability of each and every joint
tort feasor vis a vis to plaintiff/claimant
cannot be bifurcated as it is joint and
several liability. In the case of composite
negligence, apportionment of compensation
between tort feasors for making payment to
the plaintiff is not permissible as the
plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover
the
entire
amount
from
the
easiest
targets/solvent defendant.

14. There is a difference between
contributory and composite negligence. In
the case of contributory negligence, a
person who has himself contributed to the
extent cannot claim compensation for the
injuries sustained by him in the accident to
the extent of his own negligence;whereas in
the case of composite negligence, a person
who has suffered has not contributed to the
accident but the outcome of combination of
negligence of two or more other persons.
This Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan
& Ors. [2008 (3) SCC 748] has held that in
case of contributory negligence, injured
need
not
establish
the
extent
of
responsibility
of
each
wrong
doer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrong doer separately. It is only in the case
of contributory negligence that the injured
himself has contributed by his negligence
in the accident. Extent of his negligence is
required to be determined as damages
recoverable by him in respect of the
injuries have to be reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence. The relevant
portion is extracted hereunder :

"6. 'Composite negligence' refers
to the negligence on the part of two or more
persons. Where a person is injured as a
result of negligence on the part of two or
more wrong doers, it is said that the person
was injured on account of the composite
negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a
case, each wrong doer, is jointly and
severally liable to the injured for payment
of the entire damages and the injured
person has the choice of proceeding
against all or any of them. In such a case,
the injured need not establish the extent of
responsibility
of
each
wrong-doer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrong-doer separately. On the other hand
where a person suffers injury, partly due to
the negligence on the part of another
person or persons, and partly as a result of
his own negligence, then the negligence of
the part of the injured which contributed to
the
accident
is
referred
to
as his
contributory negligence. Where the injured
is guilty of some negligence, his claim for
damages is not defeated merely by reason
of the negligence on his part but the
damages recoverable by him in respect of
the injuries stands reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence.

7. Therefore, when two vehicles
are involved in an accident, and one of the
drivers claims compensation from the other
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
driver alleging negligence, and the other
driver denies negligence or claims that the
injured claimant himself was negligent,
then it becomes necessary to consider
whether the injured claimant was negligent
and if so, whether he was solely or partly
responsible for the accident and the extent
of his responsibility, that is his contributory
negligence. Therefore where the injured is
himself partly liable, the principle of
'composite negligence' will not apply nor
can there be an automatic inference that
the negligence was 50:50 as has been
assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to
have examined the extent of contributory
negligence of the appellant and thereby
avoided
confusion
between
composite
negligence and contributory negligence.
The High Court has failed to correct the
said error."

18.
This
Court
in
Challa
Bharathamma &Nanjappan (supra) has
dealt with the breach of policy conditions
by the owner when the insurer was asked to
pay the compensation fixed by the tribunal
and the right to recover the same was given
to the insurer in the executing court
concerned if the dispute between the
insurer and the owner was the subjectmatter of determination for the tribunal
and the issue has been decided in favour of
the insured. The same analogy can be
applied to the instant cases as the liability
of the joint tort feasor is joint and several.
In the instant case, there is determination
of inter se liability of composite negligence
to the extent of negligence of 2/3rd and
1/3rd of respective drivers. Thus, the
vehicle - trailor-truck which was not
insured with the insurer, was negligent to
the extent of 2/3rd. It would be open to the
insurer being insurer of the bus after
making payment to claimant to recover
from the owner of the trailor-truck the
amount to the aforesaid extent in the
execution proceedings. Had there been no
determination of the inter se liability for
want of evidence or other joint tort feasor
had not been impleaded, it was not open to
settle such a dispute and to recover the
amount in execution proceedings but the
remedy would be to file another suit or
appropriate proceedings in accordance
with law.

What emerges from the aforesaid
discussion is as follows :

(i) In the case of composite
negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to
sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors
and to recover the entire compensation as
liability of joint tort feasors is joint and
several.

(ii) In the case of composite
negligence, apportionment of compensation
between two tort feasors vis a vis the
plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He
can recover at his option whole damages
from any of them.

(iii) In case all the joint tort
feasors have been impleaded and evidence
is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal
to determine inter se extent of composite
negligence
of
the
drivers.
However,
determination of the extent of negligence
between the joint tort feasors is only for the
purpose of their inter se liability so that
one may recover the sum from the other
after making whole of payment to the
plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has
satisfied the liability of the other. In case
both of them have been impleaded and the
apportionment/ extent of their negligence
has been determined by the court/tribunal,
in main case one joint tort feasor can
recover the amount from the other in the
execution proceedings.

(iv) It would not be appropriate
for the court/tribunal to determine the
extent of composite negligence of the
drivers of two vehicles in the absence of
8 All. Krishna Pyare Gupta & Ors. Vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
45
impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In
such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor
should be left, in case he so desires, to sue
the other joint tort feasor in independent
proceedings after passing of the decree or
award." emphasis added

11. The latest decision of the Apex
Court in Khenyei (Supra) has laid down one
further
aspect
about
considering
the
negligence
more
particularly
composite/contributory
negligence.
The
deceased or the person concerned should be
shown to have contributed either to the
accident and the impact of accident upon the
victim could have been minimised if he had
taken care. In this case the deceased was not
the author or the co-author of the accident.
On facts, the deceased was not plying the
vehicle. Hence, the deduction of 30% from
the compensation awarded is bad and is set
aside. The Insurance Company who will
deposit the entire amount can have their right
to recover the amount from owner and the
Insurance Company of the other vehicle. As
far as deceased is concerned, it is a case of
composite negligence, hence, the amount
cannot be deducted from the compensation
awarded to the claimants who are the heirs of
a non tort-feasor.

12. Having heard the counsels for the
parties and considered the factual data, this
Court finds that the accident occurred on
5.12.2000 causing death of Manoj Kumar
Gupta who was 31 years of age at the time
of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his
income to be Rs.9165/- per year which
according to this Court, would be at least
Rs.11,500/- as Rs.1,000/- can be deducted
towards income tax as even in the year
2000,
the
slab
would
have
above
Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, as the deceased was
below 40 years of age and was a salaried
person, 50% of the income will have to be
added in view of the decision of the Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The
amount under non-pecuniary heads should
be at least Rs.70,000 + addition 10% per
year which would bring to figure under this
head approx Rs.1,00,000/- is granted in
view of the decision in Pranay Sethi
(Supra). As far as multiplier is concerned,
it would be 16 in view of the decision of
the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC
121 as the deceased was in the age bracket
of 31-35. As far as deduction is concerned,
it would be 1/4th as the deceased was
survived by his widow, a minor son and
parents.

13. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants is computed
herein below:

i. Income Rs.11,500/-

ii.Percentage
towards
future
prospects : 50% namely Rs.5,750/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 11,500 +
5750 = Rs.17,250/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/4th : Rs.12,938/- (rounded up)

v. Annual income : Rs.12,938 x
12 = Rs.1,55,256/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 16

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.1,55,256 x 16 = Rs.24,84,096/-

viii. Amount under non-pecuniary
head : 1,00,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
25,84,100/- (rounded up)

14. 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 :
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"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."

15. No other grounds are urged orally
when the matter was heard.

16. 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 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.

17. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 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 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) 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.

18. This Court is thankful to both the
learned Advocates for getting this matter
disposed of during this pandemic.
----------
(2021)08ILR A46
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.
THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Writ Tax No. 434 of 2021

M/s RM Dairy Products LLP, Sultanganj,
Agra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nishant Mishra, Ms. Yashonidhi Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Sri Manu Ghildyal, Sri
Ashok Singh

A. Tax - The State/Central Goods and
Service Tax Rules, 2017 - Rule 86A - The
Rule does not contemplate any recovery of tax
due from an assessee. It only provides, in
certain situations and upon certain conditions