# National Insurance Company Ltd. /Claimant v. Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 202
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-24
- **Bench:** Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/national-insurance-company-ltd-claimant-v-smt-urmila-devi-ors-45981
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgement passed by the trial court is
upheld.

27. The operative part of this
judgement was pronounced in the open
court for the reasons to follow, hence the
benefit of limitation would be available to
the parties up to the date when this
judgement stands uploaded on the official
website of the High Court.

28. The FAFO stands allowed. Parties
to bear their own cost.
----------
(2021)01ILR A202
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

FAFO No.- 363 of 2018

National Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant/Claimant
Versus
Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors.
 ...Respondents/Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sudhanshu Behari Lal Gour

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Varinder Singh, Sri Vidya Kant Shukla

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988)- Section 166 - Compensation -
Determination - age of the deceased 59
years - Income of deceased Rs.8,000/-
Held - 1/3rd has to be deducted for
personal expenses which would be
Rs.2,666/- (rounded figure) to which
addition of 10% would be required
instead of 20% for future prospects -
amount
of
love
and
affection
Rs.70,000/- with future addition at
10% per year - Interest at the rate of
7% modified to 7.5% (Para 7, 8)

Partly allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :-

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

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat
Johat & ors. 2019 (2) TAC 705 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kaushal Jayendra
Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Behari Lal
Gour, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel for
the respondent-claimants.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal is
that on 9.4.2016 Basant Kumar Dixit riding
on his motorcycle bearing registration no.
U.P.78/DD/5182 was going to Kanpur from
M/s Jai Ambe Brick Field, Sarlekhpur,
Ghatampur for realisation of the amount
and as soon as he reached near closed shop
before Raipur bridge, the driver of Truck
No. U.P. 22/T/5888 came rashly and
negligently without blowing horn and
dashed the motorcycle badly on account of
which he fell down on the road and driver
of the truck proceeded ahead crushing him
as consequence of which the deceased
succumbed to his injuries on the spot.

3. The claimants approached the
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.7, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to
as 'Tribunal' by way of filing M.A.C.P.
No.410 of 2016 claiming compensation of
Rs. 20,00,000/- with 12% annual interest.
1 All. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors.
203

4. The Tribunal by way of
impugned judgment and award dated
3.11.2017
awarded
a
sum
of
Rs.7,24,496/- as compensation with
annual interest at the rate of 7% from
the date of filing claim petition till date
of payment. Being dissatisfied, the
appellant-Insurance
Company
filed
present appeal challenging the said
award.

5. The accident is not in dispute.
The issue of negligence decided by the
Tribunal
is
not
in
dispute.
The
Insurance Company has not challenged
the liability imposed on them. The only
issue to be decided is, the quantum of
compensation awarded.

6. I have perused the Judgment
and award impugned herein.

7. This appeal requires to be
allowed as learned counsel Sri Vidya
Kant Shukla, learned counsel appearing
for the claimants could not dispute the
fact
that
the
addition
for
future
prospects should not be 20% but it
should be 10% as submitted by counsel
for the Insurance Company. The age of
the deceased was 59 years is admitted
position of fact. Income of the deceased
has been considered to be Rs.8,000/- to
which 1/3rd has to be deducted for
personal expenses which would be
Rs.2,666/- (rounded figure) to which
addition of 10% would be required
instead of 20% as per the Judgment of
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050. The rest of the
award shall remain undisturbed as I am
unable to accept the submission of Sri
Gour that as far as Pranay Sethi
(supra), the amount of love and
affection would have been Rs.70,000/-.
The Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra)
has considered future addition at 10%
per yer. The accident occurred in the
year 2016, hence, the amount is not
disturbed.

8. The interest at the rate of 7% is
modified to 7.5% in view of the latest
decision of the Apex Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johat
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."

9. The appeal is partly allowed.
Amount has to be recalculated. Refund of
excess amount has to be made to the
Insurance company by account payee
cheque, however, the amount at the rate
of
interest
is
more,
the
Insurance
Company shall deposit the same.

10. With the aforesaid observations,
present appeal is partly allowed.

11. Record and proceedings be sent
to the Tribunal.
----------
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)01ILR A204
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.11.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

FAFO Defective No.- 459 of 2020

National Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Seema Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Komal Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
-------

A. Interpretation of Statute - Golden
Rule of Interpretation - Purposive
Interpretation - Plain words have to
be accepted as such but where the
intention of the legislature is not clear
- it is the Court's duty to discern the
intention
in
the
context
of
the
background in which a particular
Section is enacted - Courts have to
give the statute a purposeful or a
functional interpretation - provisions
of Act have to be read so as to achieve
and promote the aims and object of
the Act - construction which would
defeat the rights of the havenots and
the underdog and which would lead to
injustice should be avoided (Para 13)

B. Interpretation of Statute - when a
provision is directory - provision in a
statute which is procedural in nature
although employs the word "shall"
may not be held to be mandatory - if
the procedural violation does not
seriously
cause
prejudice
to
the
adversary party - courts must lean
towards
doing
substantial
justice
rather than relying upon procedural
and technical violation - litigation is a
journey towards truth & court is
required to thrash out the underlying
truth in every dispute (Para 18, 19)

C.
Civil
Law
-
Employee's
Compensation
Act,
1923
-
Interpretation - this Act is a piece of
social security and welfare legislation
- dominant purpose is to protect the
workman - Act has been enacted with
a object to provide payment by
certain classes of employers to their
employees of compensation for injury
by the accident - provisions of the Act
should
not
be
interpreted
too
narrowly so as to debar the workman
from compensation - In case of doubt
the interpretation in favour of the
worker should be preferred (Para 11,
12, 14)

D.
Civil
Law
-
Employees
Compensation
Act
(8
of
1923)-
Section
10
-
Claim
petition
-
Maintainability - Statutory notice of
the accident in writing without delay
to the employer - Directory - Held -
Act
being
a
beneficial
piece
of
legislation enacted for the benefit of
the
have-nots
and
Commissioner
having been given power to entertain
the claim petition & decide the same
even in absence of notice u/s 10 of
the Act - the statutory requirement of
giving notice of accident u/s 10 of the
Act is merely 'directory' and not
'mandatory' - claim petition would be
maintainable even if no notice of
accident is given to the Insurance
company u/s 10 & even without any
prayer for waiver of the statutory
notice (Para 21, 29)

E.
Civil
Law
-
Employees
Compensation
Act
(8
of
1923)-