# M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Wasimunnisha & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 585
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-03
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 796 of 1993
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-national-insurance-co-ltd-v-smt-wasimunnisha-ors-50333
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 173-enhancement of compensationTribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,94,400/- @
of 10% per annum-Tribunal did not grant
any amount under the head of future loss
of income though the deceased was a
salaried person-Added 50% for future
prospects-deducted
1/3
for
personal
expenses of deceased-Multiplier of 18
applied-Total loss of dependency comes to
Rs.
2,59,200/-Amount
under
nonpecuniary heads comes to Rs. 80,000Entitlement
to
compensation
of
Rs.
3,39,200/- made out. (Para 1 to 27)
The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Wasimunnisha & Ors.
585

14. Record be sent back to the
tribunal.

15. The amount be disbursed to the
claimant as 23 years has elapsed from the
date of filing of this appeal.

16. This Court is thankful to Ms
Aarushi Khare, learned counsel for the for
United India Insurance Company Ltd. for
ably assisting this Court.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 585
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.05.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal from Order No. 796 of 1993

M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Wasimunnisha & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Kuldip Shanker Amist

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ram Jee Saxena, Sri Raghuvansh Chandra,
Sri Pravesh Kumar

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 173-enhancement of compensationTribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,94,400/- @
of 10% per annum-Tribunal did not grant
any amount under the head of future loss
of income though the deceased was a
salaried person-Added 50% for future
prospects-deducted
1/3
for
personal
expenses of deceased-Multiplier of 18
applied-Total loss of dependency comes to
Rs.
2,59,200/-Amount
under
nonpecuniary heads comes to Rs. 80,000Entitlement
to
compensation
of
Rs.
3,39,200/- made out. (Para 1 to 27)
The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Santlal Vs Rajesh (2017) SC 4054

2. NICL Vs Jugal Kishore (1998) AIR SC 719

3. St. of Ori. & ors. Vs Bijaya C. Tripathy (2005)
AIR SC 1431 Fahim Ahmad & ors. Vs United
India Ins. Co. Ltd & ors. (2014) 2 TAC 383 SC

4. UPSRTC thru Reg. Mgr. Vs Smt. Sukha Devi &
ors. FAFO No 1507 of 2003

5. Doodh Nath Chaurasiya Vs Kanhaiya Lal &
ors. FAFO No. 381 of 2017

6. Mukund Dewangan Vs Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd
(2017) AIR SC 3668

7. Sant Lal Vs Rajesh & ors., Etc (2017) 3 RCR
(Civil) 757

8. Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd
(2007) AIR SC 1474

9. NICL, Lucknow Vs Lavkush & anr. FAFO No.
199 of 2017

10. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Renu
Singh & ors. FAFO No. 1818 of 2012

11. Khenyei Vs New India Assoc. Co. Ltd & ors.
(2015) LawSuit SC 469

12. Gobald Motal Services Ltd & anr. Vs R.M.K
Velusamy (1962) SCR 1 929

13. Gen. Mgr, Ker. SRTC Vs Susamma Thomas
(1994) SCC 2 176

14. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs DTC & anr. (2009)
ACJ 1298

15. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Ins. Co. Ltd. (2007) 2 GLH 291

16. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
FAFO No. 23 of 2001

17. Tej Kumari Sharma Vs Chola Mandlam M.S.
Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. FAFO No. 2871 of 2016
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. This First Appeal From Order is
preferred
by
the
appellant-Insurance
Company challenging the award dated
27.5.1993, passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
Banda
(herein
after
referred
to
as
'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.102 of 1989
(Smt.Wasimunnishan and others vs. Battu
Ram and another) awarding a sum of
Rs.2,94,400/- as compensation to the
claimants with interest at the rate of 10%
per annum from the date of filing of the
petition. The claimants have also filed
cross-objection
for
enhancement
of
compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that
aforesaid claim petition was filed before
learned Tribunal with the averments that on
2.3.1989 at about 7:00 pm the deceased
Mohammad
Anwar
was
going
from
Pangara to Naraini. In front of the Naraini
Dak Bunglow, a tractor bearing No.URE9674 was also going towards Naraini,
which was laiden with iron bars and other
agricultural implements on the trolley and
the iron bars were protruding outside from
the trolley on the back side. There was no
red flag or any other cloth for warning nor
there was any light on the back side. The
tractor driver without giving any indication
or blowing horn suddenly stopped the
tractor wrongly due to which the iron rod
hit the deceased, who was coming from
behind on a scooter. The rod hit in the neck
of deceased and he died instantaneously.
The deceased was pillion of scooter.

3. Heard Shri K.S.Amist, learned
counsel
for
the
appellant-Insurance
Company and Shri Pravesh Kumar, learned
counsel
appearing
for
respondentclaimants. None appears for the owner.
Perused the record.

4. By way of this appeal, the
appellant-Insurance Company, who has
been saddled with liability by the Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
has
felt
aggrieved by the compensation awarded
and by the finding of fact that the driver of
the motor-cycle was not negligent. The
appellant has felt aggrieved that question of
non-joinder of the owner and the Insurance
Company of the motor-cycle has been
rejected despite the fact that the deceased
was the brother of the driver of the vehicle
(motorcycle).

5. The appellant even felt that the
Tribunal granted compensation despite the
fact that the claimants did not prove the
dependency by holding that claimants were
entitled for compensation being legal
representative and that they were dependent
on deceased. The Insurance Company was
made liable, which finding is assailed as
perverse.

6. It is further contended by Insurance
Company that the original policy was not
produced by the owner despite that the
Tribunal did not hold that there was breach
of policy condition as the tractor was
attached with a trolley and trolley was not
insured by it.

7. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that the driving
licence to drive the tractor was either fake
or say a learner's licence despite that
liability is fixed on the appellant. The
liability of the Insurance Company under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 will have to
be determined from the facts of the case.
The defences, which are available to the
Insurance Company have been taken by
6 All. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Wasimunnisha & Ors.
587
them that the licence was a learner's
licence.

8. PW1 has stated that a thresher and
the iron rods were loaded on the tractor
trolley. Defence Witness No.1 Ram Asrey
has stated that a thresher with a machine
used for agricultural purpose to cut fodder
was there, therefore, the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Santlal vs.
Rajesh AIR 2017 SC 4054 will not permit
this Court to take a different view then that
taken by the Tribunal that the tractor was
being used for agricultural purposes. This
takes this Court to the question whether the
vehicle was plied against the terms of the
policy, namely, that it was used for nonagricultural purposes. The fact that it had a
thresher with the trolley will not permit this
Court to take a different view and
Insurance Company cannot avoid its
liability.

9. As far as the driving licence of the
driver of tractor is concerned, the finding of
fact goes to show that driving licence of the
driver of the tractor was produced before
the
Tribunal
and
the
Tribunal
has
considered this aspect and has rejected the
objection of the Insurance Company. In its
finding in paragraph 17 of the judgment of
the
Tribunal
where
the
contention
regarding fake and/or learner's driving
licence of tractor driver has been answered
by assigning reasons. The document as 91Ga, which is issued by the Motor Vehicles
Department, Banda, on 20.2.1989, which
was valid up to 20.2.1994, which has the
photo of dirver-Sukhdeo, if the driving
licence was a learner's licence, it could not
have been for more than one month and,
therefore, the Insurance Company cannot
avoid its liability only by contending that
there was breach of policy condition. In our
case, there is no breach of Section 93 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This fact has
been held to be wrongly agitated and the
document, which has been considered by
the Tribunal while deciding Issue No.2
cannot be found fault with. The finding as
to licence being not learner's licence is
affirmed on facts proved.

10. The contention that the policy,
which was produced was not the policy, but
only cover note and hence Insurance
Company
be
exonerated
cannot
be
accepted. A celebrated judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Jugal Kishore, AIR
1988 SC 719, it is held that it is for the
Insurance Company to produce the policy
as it has to act fairly. In our case, the owner
has the policy and document as exhibited at
91-Ga also supports the finding recorded
by the Tribunal, which is confirmed and
affirmed by this Court.

11. This takes this Court to the last
ground as the tractor being attached with a
trolley and trolley was insured with the
Insurance Company and, therefore, they are
not liable. Whether attaching trolley to
tractor and the trolley not insured will be
sufficient to exonerate the Insurance
Company, the answer is given by the apex
court in State of Orissa & others Vs.
Bijaya C. Tripathy AIR 2005 SC 1431 and
Fahim Ahmad & others Vs United India
Insurance Company Ltd and others 2014
(2) T.A.C. 383 (SC) and this High Court
in First Appeal From Order No. 1507 of
2003
(UPSRTC
through
Regional
Manager Vs. Smt. Sukha Devi & Others)
has held that if there is no fundamental
breach of policy, the Insurance Company
cannot be exonerated. In our case, tractor
was used for carriage of Iron Bars and
thresher, which is used for agricultural
puposes is not a fundamental breach of
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
policy under Section 147 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 giving rise to the
Insurance Company to avoid its liability,
the provisions are applicable in accidents
under the Act, 1939 also.

12. This Court in First Appeal From
Order No. - 381 of 2017 (Doodh Nath
Chaurasiya Vs. Kanhaiya Lal And 3
others) decided on 6.12.2017 has held as
under:

"7. On issue no 5, the Tribunal has
held against the appellant as the trolley
was not insured with the Insurance
Company.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant has relied on Fahim Ahmad and
Others
Vs.
United
India
Insurance
Company
Limited
and
Others,
2014
LawSuit (SC) 198 and National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. V. Chinnamma, 2004
LawSuit (SC) 905 and, therefore, the same
cannot be said to be breach of policy
condition. The vehicle was in fact being
used for agricultural purposes only. There
is no other finding as to tractor was used
for carrying goods."

13. The question of driver driving the
vehicle with LMV license is also now
covered by the decision in Mukund
Dewangan
Vs.
Oriental
Insurance
Company Limited, A.I.R. 2017 (SC) 3668
and Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh and Others, Etc.,
2017 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 757.

14. It is submitted that the claimants
were not dependent on the deceased and
that the claimants are not the legal
representatives of the deceased as they fall
in class II heirs under Hindu Succession
Act, 1956. This issue is no longer res
integra as it is not necessary that the
deceased must be the sole bread winner.
The term "heirs" which has been time and
again interpreted to partake within itself
heirs in Class I and Class II heirship would
be covered. I am supported in my view by
the decision in Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company, Limited,
AIR 2007 SC 1474. The said decision has
been incorporated by this Court in FIRST
APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 199 of
2017,
National
Insurance
Company
Limited, Lucknow Vs. Lavkush and
another decided on 21.3.2017 speaks about
representatives. The adopted son and the
brother is said to be representatives falling
in class I and class II heirs respectively and,
therefore, this submission of the Insurance
Company also cannot be accepted hence,
the same is rejected.

15. As far as the question whether the
claimants are the dependents or not is
concerned, this Court concurs with the
finding of fact by the Tribunal. The fact
that the minor sister and brother are legal
representatives and the term used even in
the Act, 1939 is legal representative and
not dependants. Mother would be also
dependent on the deceased.

16. This takes this Court to decide as
to who was negligent. At the outset qua
deceased even if both drivers are held to be
negligent would be a case of composite
negligence.

17. 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
6 All. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Wasimunnisha & Ors.
589
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.

18. 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. Clause6 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
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 )

19. The Apex Court in Khenyei Vs.
New India Assurance Company Limited &
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 inter-se 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."

20. As far as the deceased is
concerned, it is a case of composite
negligence. There are divergent version of
the parties. Even if we accept the version of
the driver of the tractor that the tractor was
standing and it was on its extreme left and
he was went for taking tea. The finding of
fact that there was no red-lights, no marks
that the vehicle had iron bars. The version
of the claimants is that the tractor trolley
driver took an abrupt turn and that is how
the accident occurred. The driver was also
6 All. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Wasimunnisha & Ors.
591
injured on shoulder and the rod pierced the
neck
of
the
deceased,
who
died
instantaneously. From the facts, the driver
of the motorcycle, who was coming from
behind, rather rear side head a duty cast on
him, but in this trafficated area, where the
distance are very less maintained. His
negligence can be set to be 20%. Qua that
the Insurance Company ground that there
was negligence on the part of the driver has
to be accepted. However, claimants are
third-party, no amount can be deducted
from their share as per the judgment of
Khenyei (supra) as it was a case of
composite negligence. The amount of 20%
can be recovered from the owner and the
driver of the scooter, whose number is
there in the records and who was the elder
brother of the deceased. Hence, this issue is
partly answered in favour of the Insurance
Company.

21. This takes this Court to the
question of quantum and compensation
awarded. The compensation will have to be
reworked as the submission of Shri K.S.
Amist, learned counsel for the appellant,
that the multiplier of 400 months could not
have been granted has to be accepted. The
submission that the claimants were not
representatives or dependents on the
deceased
is
answered
in
favour
of
claimants and will have to reassessed vis-avis the fact that the claimants have filed
cross-objection, therefore, the issue of
compensation amount admissible to the
claimants will have to be recalculated and
the said exercise is undertaken. The factual
data goes to show that deceased was
employed as a Junior Teacher, but his
appointment was not as an confirmed
employee but was a tranee and, therefore,
to that the income of Rs.1,000/- taken by
the Tribunal is required to be modified as
Tribunal has not considered amount of
dearness allowance.

22. The submission of Shri Amist that
multiplier of 400 months cannot be given
has to be accepted, but at the same time, the
submission of learned counsel for the
respondent-claimants that the Tribunal did
not grant any amount under the head of
future loss of income though the deceased
was a salaried person. The judgment of
Gobald
Motor
Services
Ltd.
And
another vs. R.M.K. Velusamy, 1962 SCR
(1) 929 and General Manager, Kerala
S.R.T.C. vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994
SCC (2) 176 will permit this Court at
enough figure of 50%, hence, the amount
would be Rs.1500/- per month as the
deceased was a bachelor, but his younger
brother, younger sister and mother were
there and it is come on evidence that elder
brother after his marriage had started living
separately and it was the deceased the sole
bread-earner for the family, hence, 1/3
would be deducted. The data figure would
be Rs.1,000/- per month, which means
Rs.12,000/- per year. The multiplier of 18
will have to be granted in view of the
judgments even prevailing in those days
and the judgment of Sarla Verma and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another, 2009 ACJ 1298, which has
been applied retrospectively also in all
pending matters. As it is a matter under the
old Act, Rs.50,000/- plus Rs.30,000/-
(additional) for non-pecuniary damages
would have to be granted.

23. As far as rate of interest is
concerned, the rate of interest granted by
the Tribunal for the awarded amount is
maintained, but the deductions as given by
the Tribunal for lump sum amount cannot
be accepted. The deduction has to be 1/3 as
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there were three dependants though the
deceased was a bachelor.

24. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants and daughters of
the deceased as per the discussion above is
recomputed herein below:

i. Monthly Income : Rs.1200/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: 50% = Rs.600/-

iii. Total income : Rs.1800/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 :
Rs.1800/- - Rs.600/- = Rs.1,200/-

v. Annual income : Rs.1,200/- x 12 =
Rs.14,400/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 18

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.14,400/- x
18 = Rs.2,59,200/-

viii. Amount under non-pecuniary
heads : Rs.50,000/- + Rs.30,000/- =
 Rs.80,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.2,59,200/-
+
Rs.80,000/-
=
Rs.3,39,200/-

25. Learned Tribunal has awarded rate of
interest at 10% per annum. Thus the
compensation of works out to what is granted
but is recalculated on the basis of 9% per
annum looking to the period of litigation. The
additional amount be refunded to Insurance
Company from the fix deposit.

26. This Court granted stay, hence, the
additional amount is to be deposited calculating
amount with 9% rate of interest.

27. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent.
The appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit
the entire amount within a period of 12 weeks
from today with interest @ 9% per annum 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.

28. 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.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 592
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 1208 of 1992

The New India Assurance Co. ...Appellant
Versus
Murli Manohar Saxena & Anr.
 ...Respondents