# Pathiram & Ors v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 103
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-27
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 757 of 1998
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pathiram-ors-v-the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-anr-50492
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988-
Sections
173-
enhancement
of
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensation- The deceased left behind 6
dependents- deceased was 35 years of
age at the time of accident-The Tribunal
has assessed his income to be Rs.500/-
per month which according to this Court,
in the year of accident, would be at least
Rs.1,000/- per month as she was in the
vocation
of
doing
labour
work
and
agriculturist- the deceased was in the age
bracket of 31-35, 40% of the income will
have to be added in view of the decision of
the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi-As far as
deduction towards personal expenses of
the deceased is concerned, it should be
1/4 looking to the facts of the case-The
multiplier applicable would be 16 in view
of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla
Verma as the deceased was in the age
bracket of 31-35 years-Annual income of
the deceased is considered to be Rs.
12,000/- 40% added towards future
prospects as per Rules 220-A(3) of 1998
and applied Multiplier 16-Hence, total
compensation granted Rs. 2,71,600 @
7%. (Para 1 to 14)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Pathiram & Ors. Vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
103
under
clause
(b)
without
giving
a
reasonable opportunity to the employer to
show cause why it should not be passed.

Explanation - For the purposes of
this Sub-section, "scheduled bank" means a
bank for the time being inicluded in the
Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of
India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934).

[(3A) The interest and the penalty
payable under sub-section (3) shall be paid
to the workman or his dependant, as the
case may be.]]"

9. The above question of law is no
longer res integra in view of the decision of
the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance
Company Vs. Siby George and Others,
2012 (4) T.A.C. 4 (S.C.) which is later in
point of time, wherein it is held that
liability to pay interest is on Insurance
Company. All other grounds mentioned in
the memo of appeal are in the realm of
question of facts and the finding of the
Commissioner on these issues are not
perverse, hence, are not disturbed by this
Court as this Court is fortified in its view
by the decision of the Apex Court passed in
Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation
Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018,
Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional
Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259
(SC) & Mayan vs. Mustafa and another,
2022 ACJ 524 wherein the Apex Court has
held that under Section 30 of Workmen
Compensation Act, the High Court cannot
enter into the arena of facts unless they are
proved to be perverse and unless there is a
question of law involved.

10. The Tribunal granted interest only
if there is no payment within one month
this finding is against the mandate of this
Court. This Court is fortified in its view by
the decision of this Court passed in First
Appeal From Order No.2126 of 2019
(Sunita Mishra and another Vs. M.T.G.
Infra Power Pvt. Ltd and another)
decided on 13.9.2019.

11. The appeal is dismissed as a
question of law are answered against the
appellant. The cross objection of claimant
is allowed.

12. The awarded amount shall carry
12% simple interest which is statutory rate
of interest from the date of accident till
deposit of difference in interest is made by
insurance company.

13. The claimants be paid the amount
forthwith.

14. Record be transmitted to the
Commissioner.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 103
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 757 of 1998

Pathiram & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri R.K. Porwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shashi Kant Srivastava

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988-
Sections
173-
enhancement
of
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensation- The deceased left behind 6
dependents- deceased was 35 years of
age at the time of accident-The Tribunal
has assessed his income to be Rs.500/-
per month which according to this Court,
in the year of accident, would be at least
Rs.1,000/- per month as she was in the
vocation
of
doing
labour
work
and
agriculturist- the deceased was in the age
bracket of 31-35, 40% of the income will
have to be added in view of the decision of
the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi-As far as
deduction towards personal expenses of
the deceased is concerned, it should be
1/4 looking to the facts of the case-The
multiplier applicable would be 16 in view
of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla
Verma as the deceased was in the age
bracket of 31-35 years-Annual income of
the deceased is considered to be Rs.
12,000/- 40% added towards future
prospects as per Rules 220-A(3) of 1998
and applied Multiplier 16-Hence, total
compensation granted Rs. 2,71,600 @
7%. (Para 1 to 14)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs
U.O.I. & ors.

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

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

4. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal, (2012) 1 GLH SC
442

5. Sarla Verma Vs DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121

6. Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & anr..Vs R.M.K
Veluswami & ors. (1962) SCR 1 929

7. National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. (2017) 0 SSC 1050

8. Lata Wadhwa Vs St. of Bih. (2001) AIR SC
3218
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard R.K. Porwal, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Shashi
Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for
respondent and perused the judgment and
order impugned.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 16.4.1998 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/IVth Additional
District Judge, Etawah (hereinafter referred
to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No.402 of 1995
awarding a sum of Rs.98,000/- with interest
at the rate of 12% as compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal
is not in dispute. The vehicle insured with
the respondent - insurance company is not
in dispute. The respondent has not
challenged the liability imposed on them.
The only issue to be decided by this Court
is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower
side as the deceased -Ramwati is shown to
be wife of appellant who has engaged in
the vocation as a labour and agriculturist.
The deceased left behind her husband and
five
children
and
the
tribunal
has
considered her income to be only Rs.500/-
per month and granted multiplier of 16. The
tribunal has also granted meager amount of
Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses as the
accident occurred on 18.6.1995. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that the income of the deceased in
the year 1995 as per Lata Wadhwa v.
State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 3218, can be
considered to be Rs.3,000/- per month
7 All. Pathiram & Ors. Vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
105
namely Rs.36,000/- per annum, to which as
the deceased was below 35 years of age,
40% should be added, as she was survived
by six persons, 1⁄4 should be deducted and
the multiplier of 16 should be granted. It is
further submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that non peculiar damages may be
awarded as per the judgment of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC)
1050 which has been made applicable
retrospectively with 10% increase for every
three years.

5. Sri Shashi Kant Srivastava , learned
counsel
for
insurance
company
has
submitted that the income granted by the
Tribunal is just and proper. However he
could not point out that the future loss
which has not been granted has been
properly granted. As far as multiplier is
concerned, he has left that the same may be
decided on the basis of judgment of Apex
Court in the case of Sarla Verma and
others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC). It is
submitted
by
learned
counsel
for
respondent in his oral cross objection that
the interest at the rate of 12% granted by
the Tribunal is on much higher side and
requires to be reduced.

6. Heard the learned counsels for the
parties and considered the factual data. This
Court finds that the accident occurred on
18.6.1995 causing death of Ramwati who
was 35 years of age at the time of accident.
The Tribunal has assessed his income to be
Rs.500/- per month which according to this
Court, in the year of accident, would be at
least Rs.1,000/- per month as she was in the
vocation of doing labour work and
agriculturist. To which as the deceased was
in the age bracket of 31-35, 40% of the
income will have to be added in view of the
decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi
(Supra) and the general trend even in
earlier 1960 trend in case titled Gobald
Motor Service Ltd. and another Vs.
R.M.K Veluswami and other, 1962
SCR(1) 929, the addition of 40% can be
granted. As far as deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased is
concerned, it should be 1/4 looking to the
facts of the case. The multiplier applicable
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 years.

7. The total compensation payable is
recalculated and is computed herein below:

i. Annual Income Rs.12,000/- (
Rs.1,000/- per month)

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.4800/-

iii. Total income : Rs.12,000 +
Rs.4800/- = Rs.16,800/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/4th
towards
personal
expenses
:
Rs.12,600/-

v. Multiplier applicable : 16

vi.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.12,600/- x 16 = Rs.2,01,600/-

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

viii.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.2,71,600/-.

8. As far as issue of interest is
concerned, this Court is in agreement with
oral cross objection of learned counsel for
the respondent- insurance company raised
in appeal that interest should not have been
awarded at the rate of 12%. Hence, the
above, amount awarded by the Tribunal
would carry interest at the rate of 7% from
the date of filing of claim petition till the
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decision and the enhanced amount would
carry interest at the rate of 6% from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the
amount is deposited.

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

10. 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 respondent- insurance company
shall deposit the amount within a period
of 12 weeks from today with interest as
directed above and disbursed to the
claimant. The amount already deposited
be deducted from the amount to be
deposited. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.

11. On depositing the amount in the
Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed
to first deduct the amount of deficit court
fees, if any. 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
illiterate or rustic villagers.

12. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case
of Smt. Hansaguri 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 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)
while disbursing the amount.

13.

Fresh Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein. The Tribunals in the State shall
follow the direction of this Court as
herein
aforementioned
as
far
as
disbursement is concerned, it should
look into the condition of the litigant
and the pendency of the matter and
judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The
same is to be applied looking to the
facts of each case.

14. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj Allianz
General
Insurance
Company Private Ltd. v. 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. As long
period has elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants
in
Nationalized
Bank
without F.D.R.

15. This Court is thankful to both
the counsels for getting this matter
decided.
----------
7 All. Smt. Hasina Begum & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Bareilly & Anr.
107
(2023) 7 ILRA 107
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.05.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1011 of 2000

Smt. Hasina Begum & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Bareilly &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri P.K. Agarwal, Sri Ram Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act,1988-
Sections
173-
enhancement
of
compensation- The deceased left behind
five
dependents-
claimants
sought
compensation in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
together
with
18%
annual
interestdeceased was aged 31 years and would
work on the jeep as an assistant and a
partner to the owner-The two adults were
his widow and the mother, and the three
minors, his children- Going by Rule 220-A
(2)(iii) of Rules, 1998 reckoning the minor
dependents as half a unit, the total
number of dependents would be three and
a
half-It
would
be
rounded
off
or
rationalized to 'four'-According to the
holding in Sarla Verma (for a married man,
leaving behind dependents in the bracket
of 4-6, a deduction of one-fourth has to be
directed towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased-The Tribunal
has directed a quantified deduction of
Rs.800/-, that is about two-fifth of the
deceased's income, determined by the
Tribunal, that is to say, Rs.2000/-. This
Court, therefore, holds that the Tribunal
has
ordered
an
excessive
deduction
towards personal expenses, which should
be substituted by a deduction of onefourth- the appropriate multiplier to be
adopted is '16'-Tribunal erred in applying
the multiplier of '15'-Annual income of the
deceased is considered to be Rs. 36,000/-
50% added towards future prospects as
per Rules 220-A(3) of 1998 and applied
Multiplier 16-Hence, total compensation
granted Rs. 878000/ @ 7%. (Para 1 to 47)
B. (I) Spousal consortium is generally
defined
as
rights
pertaining
to
the
relationship of a husband-wife which
allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of "company, society,
cooperation, affection, and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation". [Black's
Law Dictionary(5th Edn., 1979).]

(II). Parental consortium is granted to the
child upon the premature death of a
parent,
for
loss
of
"parental
aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline,
guidance and training".

(III). Filial consortium is the right of the
parents to compensation in the case of
an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock and agony to the
parents and family of the deceased. The
greatest agony for a parent is to lose
their child during their lifetime. Children
are valued for their love, affection,
companionship and their role in the
family unit. (Para 27)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. M.R. Krishna Murthi Vs New India Assur. Co.
Ltd & ors. (2020) 15 SCC 493

2. Gopalpuri Jai Prakash & ors. Vs The Managing
Dir, APSRTC & ors., MACMA. No. 694 of 2011

3. Meena Pawaia & ors. Vs Ashraf Ali & ors.
(2021) SCC OnLine SC 1083

4. Gyan Chand Jain & ors. Vs Permanand & ors.
(2003) 1 TAC 490

5. Sarla Verma(Smt.) & ors. Vs DTC (2009) 6
SCC 121