# Madhuri Singh & Ors v. Hariyana Transport Corp. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 5 ILRA 73
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-26
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 3648 of 2018
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/madhuri-singh-ors-v-hariyana-transport-corp-ors-46986
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - Compensation enhancement - total
amount of interest, accrued on the principal
amount
of
compensation
is
to
be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis - 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 - 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 (Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in
the case of Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani v/s
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291). (Para - 15)

The claimants moved Motor Accident Claim
Petition before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
claiming Rs.1,00,40,000/- as compensation at
the rate of 18% rate of interest - Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 33,32,000/- along with
7% simple interest from the date of filing the
claim petition till the date of actual payment
thereof. (Para - 3,4)

HELD:- Tribunal may release the money with
certain stipulations and that guidelines have to
be followed but not rigidly followed as
precedents . The compensation payable to the
appellants (in view of the decision of the
Apex
Court
in
National
Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors.,
2017
0
Supreme
(SC)
1050)
is
Rs.53,48,500/-. Judgment and decree passed by
the
Tribunal
shall
stand
modified.
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. (Para - 9,14,16)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

5 All. Madhuri Singh & Ors. Vs. Hariyana Transport Corp. & Ors.
73
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.

17. In view of the above, it is directed
that on deposit of the amount, the Tribunal
shall disburse the entire amount by way of
account payee cheque or by way of RTGS
to the account of the claimants within 12
weeks from the date the amounts are
deposited by the respondents. Record be
sent back to the Tribunal.
----------
(2021)05ILR A73
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.03.2021

BEFORE

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

FAFO No. 3648 of 2018

Madhuri Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Hariyana Transport Corp. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Singh, Sri Amit Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - Compensation enhancement - total
amount of interest, accrued on the principal
amount
of
compensation
is
to
be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis - 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 - 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 (Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in
the case of Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani v/s
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291). (Para - 15)

The claimants moved Motor Accident Claim
Petition before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
claiming Rs.1,00,40,000/- as compensation at
the rate of 18% rate of interest - Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 33,32,000/- along with
7% simple interest from the date of filing the
claim petition till the date of actual payment
thereof. (Para - 3,4)

HELD:- Tribunal may release the money with
certain stipulations and that guidelines have to
be followed but not rigidly followed as
precedents . The compensation payable to the
appellants (in view of the decision of the
Apex
Court
in
National
Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors.,
2017
0
Supreme
(SC)
1050)
is
Rs.53,48,500/-. Judgment and decree passed by
the
Tribunal
shall
stand
modified.
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. (Para - 9,14,16)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

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

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050

3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. A.V. Padma & ors. Vs R. Venugopal, (2012) 3
SCC 378

5. Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum Vs Susamma Thomas
& ors., AIR 1994 SC 1631

6. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.,
F.A.F.O. No.23 of 2001

7. Zeemal Bano & ors. Vs Insurance Company,
2020 TAC (2) 118

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J. &
Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. This appeal challenges the award
and decree though passed in favour of the
claimants granting a sum of Rs.33,32,000/-
from the date of filing of the claim petition
till realisation with 7% simple rate of
interest. The claimants have felt aggrieved
as the tribunal did not grant any amount
under the head of future loss of income and
there is no discussion also. Why the
tribunal has not followed decisions of the
Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC
121 and National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,
2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. The claimants
being dissatisfied with the awarded amount
preferred this appeal for enhancement of
the amount of compensation.

3. The claimants moved Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 58 of 2015
before
Motor
Accident
Claim
Tribunal/Additional
District
Judge-7,
Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the
Tribunal) claiming Rs.1,00,40,000/- as
compensation at the rate of 18% rate of
interest. It was averred therein that
deceased was the only bread-winner of the
family. He was hale and hearty and aged
about 28 years at the time of accident. Facts
as culled from the record are that deceased
was working in Vasaka G. Engineering
Company. On 9.1.2014, at about 8 am the
deceased along with his brother riding on
motorbike was going to the Company
situated in District Faridabad and when
they reached village Sikari Chauk, P.S.
Sadar Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad,
driver of the bus of Hariyana Transport
Corporation bearing Registration No. HR
38 S 2103 dashed the motorbike as a result
of which they were badly injured and in
few minutes of the accident, the deceased
passed away.

4. The Tribunal after recording
evidence and after hearing the learned
advocates for the parties, the Tribunal, vide
the Judgment and award dated 18.1.2017,
awarded a sum of Rs. 33,32,000/- along
with 7% simple interest from the date of
filing the claim petition till the date of
actual payment thereof.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The
vehicle being insured by the insurance
company. It is also accepted that, no appeal
is preferred by the insurance company,
death occurred due to accidental injury is
not in dispute. The only issue to be decided
is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the Tribunal has not granted
any amount under the head of Future Loss
of Income and it has wrongly deducted
1/3rd amount in place of 1/4th. It is further
submitted that less amount has been
awarded under the heads of funeral
expenses and loss of love and affection.
The Tribunal further ignored loss of estate
of the deceased; loss of consortium of
5 All. Madhuri Singh & Ors. Vs. Hariyana Transport Corp. & Ors.
75
spouse; loss of care and guidance of minor
children and further it has granted less rate
of interest than 12%.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company submits
that the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and proper and does
not call for any interference of the Court. It
is further submitted by counsel that the
tribunal has not committed any error as the
rate of interest is as per the Uttar Pradesh
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 and that the
deceased was in private employment and
hence not entitled to future loss of income.

8. After hearing the counsel for the
parties and after perusing the judgment and
order impugned, the income of the
deceased
can
be
considered
to
be
Rs.23000/- p.m. as deceased was employed
in Kalkaji Engineering Company, to which
as the deceased was below 40 years of age,
50% will have to be added, the reason
being the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra)
an no way distinguishing whether the
employment in private and or government
employment. All the distinguishing led is
regarding
employment
and
self
employment, hence the future loss of
income looking to the facts of the case also.
Looking to the dependants of the deceased,
deduction of 1/4 to which as children of 2
years and one of 7 months Kumari Alpana
have loss their father at the time of
accident,
deduction
towards
personal
expenses of the deceased should have been
1/4. As deceased was in the age bracket of
26-30, multiplier of 17 is applicable

9. Hence, the compensation payable
to the appellants in view of the decision of
the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) is
computed as herein below:

i.
Income
Rs.23000/-
per
month

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects: 50% namely Rs.11,500/-

iii.
Total
income:
Rs.23000+11500= Rs.34,500/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/4:
Rs.25,875/-

v. Annual income: Rs.25,875 x
12= Rs.3,10,500/-

vi. Multiplier applicable:17

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.3,10,500 x 17=Rs.52,78,500/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads: Rs.70,000/-

x.
Total
compensation:
Rs.53,48,500/-

10. As far as issue of rate of interest
is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of
the latest decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat
Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705
(S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held
as under :-

"13. The aforesaid features
equally apply to the contentions urged on
behalf of the claimants as regards the
rate of interest. The Tribunal had
awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
but the same had been too high a rate in
comparison
to
what
is
ordinarily
envisaged in these matters. The High
Court,
after
making
a
substantial
enhancement in the award amount,
modified the interest component at a
reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that
allowed by High Court."

11. No other grounds are urged orally
when the matter was heard.
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. At this stage, it has been
submitted by learned counsel for the
claimants that several years have elapsed,
this Court may not direct deposit of said
amounts in fixed deposits and though this
Court has time and again directed the
Insurance Companies not to deduct TDS,
the same is being deducted.

13. We deem it fit to rely on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
A.V.
Padma
and
others
Vs.
R.
Venugopal, 2012 (3) SCC 378 wherein the
Apex Court has considered the judgment
rendered in General Manager, Kerala
State
Road
Transport
Corporation,
Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas and
others, AIR 1994 SC 1631. Paras 5 and 6
of A.V. Padma's Judgment read as under:-

"5. Thus, sufficient discretion has
been given to the Tribunal not to insist on
investment of the compensation amount in
long term fixed deposit and to release even
the whole amount in the case of literate
persons. However, the Tribunals are often
taking a very rigid stand and are
mechanically ordering in almost all cases
that the amount of compensation shall be
invested in long term fixed deposit. They
are taking such a rigid and mechanical
approach
without
understanding
and
appreciating the distinction drawn by this
Court in the case of minors, illiterate
claimants and widows and in the case of
semi- literate and literate persons. It needs
to be clarified that the above guidelines
were issued by this Court only to safeguard
the interests of the claimants, particularly
the minors, illiterates and others whose
amounts are sought to be withdrawn on
some fictitious grounds. The guidelines
were not to be understood to mean that the
Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while
considering an application seeking release
of the money. The guidelines cast a
responsibility on the Tribunals to pass
appropriate orders after examining each
case on its own merits.

However, it is seen that even in
cases when there is no possibility or chance
of the feed being frittered away by the
beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy
or susceptibility to exploitation, investment
of the amount of compensation in long term
fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as
a matter of course and in a routine manner,
ignoring the object and the spirit of the
guidelines issued by this Court and the
genuine requirements of the claimants.
Even in the case of literate persons, the
Tribunals
are
automatically
ordering
investment of the amount of compensation
in
long
term
fixed
deposit
without
recording that having regard to the age or
fiscal background or the strata of the
society to which the claimant belongs or
such other considerations, the Tribunal
thinks
it
necessary
to
direct
such
investment in the larger interests of the
claimant and with a view to ensure the
safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the
claimant's application for withdrawal of
the
amount
of
compensation
in
a
mechanical manner and without proper
application of mind. This has resulted in
serious injustice and hardship to the
claimants. The Tribunals appear to think
that in view of the guidelines issued by this
Court, in every case the amount of
compensation should be invested in long
term
fixed
deposit
and
under
no
circumstances the Tribunal can release the
entire amount of compensation to the
claimant even if it is required by him.
Hence a change of attitude and approach
on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in
the interest of justice.
5 All. Madhuri Singh & Ors. Vs. Hariyana Transport Corp. & Ors.
77

6. In this case, the victim of the
accident died on 21.7.1993. The award was
passed by the Tribunal on 15.2.2002. The
amount of compensation was enhanced by
the High Court on 6.7.2006. Neither the
Tribunal in its award nor the High Court in
its order enhancing compensation had
directed
to
invest
the
amount
of
compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The Insurance Company deposited the
compensation amount in the Tribunal on
7.1.2008. In the application filed by the
appellants
on
19.6.2008
seeking
withdrawal of the amount without insisting
on investment of any portion of the amount
in long term deposit, it was specifically
stated that the first appellant is an educated
lady who retired as a Superintendent of the
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation,
Bangalore. It was also stated that the
second appellant Poornachandrika is a
M.Sc. degree holder and the third appellant
Shalini was holding Master Degree both in
Commerce and in Philosophy. It was stated
that they were well versed in managing
their lives and finances. The first appellant
was already aged 71 years and her health
was not very good. She required money for
maintenance
and
also
to
put
up
construction on the existing house to
provide dwelling house for her second
daughter who was a co-owner along with
her. The second daughter was stated to be
residing
in
a
rented
house
paying
exorbitant rent which she could not afford
in view of the spiralling costs. It was
further stated in the application that the
first appellant was obliged to provide a
shelter
to
the
first
daughter
Poornachandrika. It was pointed out that if
the money was locked up in a nationalised
bank, only the bank would be benefited by
the deposit as they give a paltry interest
which could not be equated to the costs of
materials which were ever increasing. It
was further stated that the delay in payment
of compensation amount exposed the
appellants
to
serious
prejudice
and
economic ruin. Along with the application,
the second and third appellants had filed
separate affidavits supporting the prayer in
the application and stating that they had no
objection to the amount being paid to the
first appellant.

7. While rejecting the application
of the appellants, the Tribunal did not
consider any of the above-mentioned
aspects mentioned in the application.
Unfortunately, the High Court lost sight of
the said aspects and failed to properly
consider
whether,
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, there was any
need for keeping the compensation amount
in long term fixed deposit. "

14. Thus, it goes without saying that,
in our case, the oral prayer of counsel for
claimant requires to be considered as the
guidelines in A.V. Padma and others
(supra) was in the larger interest of the
claimants. Rigid stand should now be given
way. People even rustic villagers' have
bank account which has to be compulsorily
linked with Aadhar, therefore, what is the
purpose of keeping money in fixed deposits
in banks where a person, who has suffered
injuries or has lost his kith and kin, is not
able to see the colour of compensation. We
feel that time is now ripe for setting fresh
guidelines as far as the disbursements are
concerned. The guidelines in Susamma
Thomas (supra), which are being blindly
followed, cause more trouble these days to
the
claimants
as
the
Tribunals
are
overburdened with the matters for each
time if they require some money, they have
to move the Tribunal where matters would
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remain pending and the Tribunal on its free
will, as if money belonged to them, would
reject the applications for disbursements,
which is happening in most of the cases.
The parties for their money have to come to
court more particularly up to High Court,
which is a reason for our pain. Should
reliance can be placed on Susamma
Thomas (supra) in matters where claimants
prove and show that they can take care of
their money? In our view, the Tribunal may
release the money with certain stipulations
and that guidelines have to be followed but
not
rigidly
followed
as
precedents.
Recently, the Jammu and Kashmir High
Court was faced with similar situation in
the case of Zeemal Bano and others Vs.
Insurance Company, 2020 TAC (2) 118.

15. While sitting in Single Bench of
this Court, one of us (Dr. Justice Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker) has held that the
Insurance Company should not deduct any
amount under T.D.S in the case of Smt.
Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and
another, F.A.F.O. No.23 of 2001, decided
on 26.11.2020, which should be strictly
adhered to. Relevant part of the said
Judgment is as under:-

" It is further orally conveyed that
even if the amounts will be deposited, the
Insurance company normally deducts TDS.
The judgement is reviewed and at the end.

I. On depositing the amount in
the Registry of the Tribunal, Registry is
directed to first deduct the amount of deficit
court fees, if any.

II. Considering the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in
2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of
investment
is
not
passed
because
applicants/claimants
are
neither
not
illiterate and in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Hussain Babulal Shaikh and
others, 2017 (1) TAC 400 (Bom.).

III. View of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported
in 2007(2) GLH 291, total amount of
interest, accrued on the principal amount
of compensation is to be apportioned on
financial year to financial year basis and if
the interest payable to claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
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 (as
directed in para No. II) without producing
the certificate from the concerned IncomeTax Authority."

16. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and decree
passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified
to the aforesaid extent. The respondentInsurance 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.

17. In view of the above, it is directed
that on deposit of the amount, the Tribunal
shall disburse the entire amount by way of
account payee cheque or by way of RTGS
to the account of the claimants within 12
weeks from the date the amounts are
deposited by the respondents. Record be
sent back to the Tribunal.
5 All. Smt. Jyotsna Verma Vs. Ashok Kumar
79
----------
(2021)05ILR A79
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal No. 432 of 2009

Smt. Jyotsna Verma ...Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
In Person, Ms. Jyotsna Verma (In Person),
Sri Madhur Prakash, Smt. Archana Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri B.D. Mishra, Sri Syed Fahim Ahmed

A. Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Sections 24, 25; Hindu Adoption &
Maintenance Act, 1956 - Application for
modification in the decree .

This application is termed as an application for
modification to review the order passed by this
Court which, in fact, is an application for
correction of an error which had crept in which
can be said to be an error apparent on the face
of the record. (Para 10)

The appellant was sharing the house with the
husband, who passed away recently, as per
the orders passed by this Court. The Court
seems to have recorded her statement in order
dated 30.07.2018 and disposed off the appeal
(which was filed in the year 2009 challenging
the decree of divorce passed in favour of the
respondent-husband) as withdrawn without
modifying the decree of divorce. This order has
caused problem to the appellant. (Para 5, 11,
12)
The dispute was matrimonial dispute which had
given rise to the litigation between the parties,
which had started way back in the year 1997/1999
when the appellant had filed a complaint under
sections 498-A and 323, I.P.C. against her in-laws
including the plaintiff-respondent (husband) now
deceased. (Para 12)

Sri Ashok Kumar (deceased) had moved the
Family Court, Meerut and a decree was passed
against the appellant herein, which was challenged
before this Court on several grounds. The learned
Judge of the Family Court while considering the
said complaint case had given a finding that she
had deserted the husband, but the case set up by
way of the appeal before this Court as well as by
way of this modification application, is that the
appellant never wanted to lose the company of her
husband, who is now dead. The husband after
30.7.2018 (last order passed by the Court when
the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn) had
never came up before the Court to complain about
desertion or regarding any other matrimonial
dispute.
The
non-substantiation
of
the
allegations loses all its significance in the
present factual scenario of this case and a
case for setting aside the impugned decree
of divorce is made out. (Para 13)

The fact that the respondent-husband and
the appellant started cohabiting under the
order of this Court itself as there was a
consensus of ending the dispute between
them. (Para 12)

B. It cannot be said that the appellant is
the divorced wife. The appellant would be
entitled to the maintenance as per Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 as
she was dependent on the deceased. It is
made clear that she has during a intervening
period of twenty years of litigation of has never
claimed what can be termed to be maintenance
under sections 24 and 25 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 or any maintenance under section 125, Cr.
P.C. (Para 15, 16, 17)

The only legal heir who are entitled to inherit
the estate of the deceased are the appellant and
her son, who is now major. (Para 14)