# Radhika Devi & Ors v. Rajendra Prasad Daruka & Anr - **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 649 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-08-18 - **Case number:** FAFO No. 3830 of 2009 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Vivek Varma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radhika-devi-ors-v-rajendra-prasad-daruka-anr-46386 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Only issue to be decided is quantum of compensation awarded-amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and interest awarded are on lower side-salary certificate shows Rs. 35,758/- but wrongly considered as Rs.18,315/-30% of income to be added as future prospectsdeduction towards personal expenses to be 1/4 as deceased had 4 persons to feed. Appeal partly allowed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: ## Text 10 All. Radhika Devi & Ors. Rajendra Prasad Daruka & Anr. 649 (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 526, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., 2013 (8) SCC 337. 22.2. When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." (emphasis supplied) 11. In the case in hand, grounds for review, as above, and the review application do not satisfy the contours of entertaining the review petition, hence, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of this Court dated 18.10.2011. 12. This review application is, therefore, dismissed. ---------- (2021)10ILR A649 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED:ALLAHABAD 18.08.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. FAFO No. 3830 of 2009 Radhika Devi & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Rajendra Prasad Daruka & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, Deepali Srivastava 650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Only issue to be decided is quantum of compensation awarded-amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and interest awarded are on lower side-salary certificate shows Rs. 35,758/- but wrongly considered as Rs.18,315/-30% of income to be added as future prospectsdeduction towards personal expenses to be 1/4 as deceased had 4 persons to feed. Appeal partly allowed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: 1. National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi & ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 2. Sunil Sharma & ors. Vs Bachitar Singh & ors., (2011) 11 SCC 425 3. Manasvi Jain Vs Delhi Transport Corp. Ltd. & ors., (2014) 13 SCC 22 4.National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. 5. A.Vs Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442 6. Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 7. First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.) 8. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal & ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. & Hon'ble Vivek Varma, J.) 1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants; Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents; and perused the record. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 27.3.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.473 of 2004 awarding a sum of Rs.19,11,760/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation. 3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which is required to be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement and learned counsel submitted the salary certificate of the deceased, which is shown the income of the deceased was Rs.35,758/- and after deduction income tax, income of the deceased was Rs.31,182/- per month. It is also submitted that as the deceased was survived by his wife, one son and three daughter and hence the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased as 1/4 and not 1/3. The multiplier has to be as 10 All. Radhika Devi & Ors. Rajendra Prasad Daruka & Anr. 651 per that of deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the following judgments of the Apex Court: (i) Sunil Sharma and others v. Bachitar Singh and Others, (2011) 11 SCC 425. (ii) Manasvi Jain v. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited and Others, (2014) 13 SCC 22. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently objected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 9.11.2003 causing death of Subedar Ram who was 48 years of age and left behind him, wife (now died), one son and two daughters. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.18,315/- per month. The deceased was a Senior Engineer in N.T.P.C. by profession. The tribunal has erred itself in not considering the income of the deceased and has deducted amount which he could not deduct holding that they were personal benefits to the deceased. All that could have been deducted would be the tax benefit and, therefore, we cannot concur with the tribunal as far as holding that the deceased was entitled to that the income was Rs.18,315/- per month. The income has to be considered Rs.31,000/-as the salary slip categorically showed the income of the deceased to his income categorically shows that it was Rs.35,758/- per month even if we deduct Rs.4,000/- as tax amount, Rs.31,000/- per month would be the income which would be admissible to the family. We are considering to be Rs.31,000/- per month (rounded figure) which we feel is just and proper. As per the judgements cited by Shri Sinha, the deductions made by the tribunal could not have been made. To which as the deceased was age bracket of 46-50 years, 30% of the income will have to be added as future prospects in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. As far as deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, it should be 1/4 as the deceased had four persons to feed. 7. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is computed herein below: i. Income Rs.31,000/- p.m. ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 30% namely Rs.9,300/- iii. Total income : Rs. 31000 + 9300 = Rs.40,300/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/4 : Rs.30,225/- v. Annual income : Rs.30,225 x 12 = Rs.3,62,700/- vi. Multiplier applicable : 13(as the deceased was in the age bracket of 46-50 years) vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.3,62,700 x 13 = Rs.47,15,100/- viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.70,000/- ix. Total compensation : Rs.47,85,100/-. 652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 8. 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. 9. In 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 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. 10. 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 not blindly apply the judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case. 11. 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." 12. 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 along with additional 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. 13. As far as claimant No.1 is concerned, the widow has passed away and hence, the amount to be disbursed in equal proportion to legal representations. 10 All. Dr. Lal Bahadur Vs. Ritesh Pandey 653 14. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that the matter is disposed of. ---------- (2021)10ILR A653 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 25.10.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J Election Petition No. 1 of 2019 Dr. Lal Bahadur ...Petitioner Versus Ritesh Pandey ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Akhilesh Kumar Kalra, Amit Tripathi, Asheesh Agnihotri, Avinash Chandra, Badrus Sahar, Kali Prasad Singh, Prashant Kumar, Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, Shakti Vikram Srivastava Counsel for the Respondent: G.A. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 861, 82 & 117 - Application filed by Petitioner for exempting from publishing notice in Hindi daily Dainik Jagran-non compliance of section 861, 82 or 117 of RP Act-liable to be dismissed u/s 86 -Petitioner admittedly not filed original election petition-copy filed along with court fee is a true copy attested-such declaration is made on each and every page-cannot be said to be a bonafide mistake. W.P. dismissed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: 1.Dr. Mohammad Ismail Faruqui Vs Shri Rajnath Singh: Election Petition No.5 of 2014 2. R.K. Roja Vs U.S. Rayudu & anr., (2016) 14 SCC 275 3. K. Venkateswara Rao & anr. Vs Bekkam Narsimha Reddy & ors., AIR 1969 SC 872, 4. Hukumdev Narain Yadav Vs Lalit Narain Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133 5. G.Vs Sreerama Reddy & anr. Vs Returning Officer & ors. (2009) 8 SCC 736 6. K. Venkateswara Rao & anr. Vs Bekkam Narsimha Reddy & ors., AIR 1969 SC 872 7. Hukumdev Narain Yadav Vs Lalit Narain Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133 8. G.Vs Sreerama Reddy & anr. Vs Returning Officer & ors. (2009) 8 SCC 736 9. Uday Shankar Triyar Vs Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & anr. (2006) 1 SCC 75; 10. Sheo Sadan Singh Vs Mohan Lal Gautam, 1969(1) SCC 408; 11. Mairembam Prithviraj alias Prithviraj Singh Vs Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh (2017) 2 SCC 487; 12. Ajay Maken Vs Adesh Kumar Gupta & anr. (2013) 3 SCC 489; 13. U.S. Sasidharan Vs K. Karunakaran & anr. (1989) 4 SCC 482; C.P. John Vs Babu M. Palissery & ors. (2014) 10 SCC 547 14. Saritha S. Nair Vs Hibi Eden, 2020 SCC Online SC 1006 (SLP (Civil) No.10678 of 2020 dated 9.12.2020) 15. F.A. Sapa & ors. Vs Singora & ors. (1991) 3 SCC 375 16. Abdulrasakh Vs K.P. Mohammed & ors. (2018) 5 SCC 59; Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Vs Naresh 17. Kushali Shigaonkar (2009) 9 SCC 310 and Tej Bahadur Vs Narendra Modi, AIROnline 2019ALL 2004 18. Uday Shankar Triyar Vs Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & anr. (2006) 1 SCC 75 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)