# Rajesh Singh & Anr v. Margub Ali & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 865
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-27
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3018 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-singh-anr-v-margub-ali-ors-46656
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Accident Death Claim - Motor
Vehicles Act,1988 - Section 166 - Enhancement
of Compensation - Wife of claimant, Smt. Rita
Singh posted as Assistant Teacher - On
19.2.2013, she was travelling as a pillion rider
on motor cycle, when a truck being driven
rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle
as a result of which Smt. Rita Singh died on the
spot itself - Claimant sought enhancement of
compensation on ground that as the deceased
was below 40 years and salaried person, 50 per
cent should have been added to her income
under the head of future prospect, amount
under the head of pecuniary loss ought to have
been awarded & Interest is to be enhanced -
Insurance company resisted claim on ground
that husband cannot be considered to be
dependent on his wife, he would have his own
earnings - Held - Court fixed income of the
deceased at Rs.25,000 - Added 50% under the
head of Future Prospect - Deduction of 1⁄2
towards personal expenses as there was only
one dependent, i.e., minor son - As the
deceased was 36 years of age, multiplier of 16
and not 17 applied - Husband and son lost their
wife and mother, hence, Rs.70,000/- awarded
towards non pecuniary damages - Court found
Chandra Bhan, driver of the motorcycle to be
25% negligent therefore deducted 25% from
the amount payable by the Insurance Company
- Compensation payable to the claimants after
deduction of 25% of amount would be
Rs.27,52,500 - rate of interest should be 7.5%
from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the amount is deposited (Para 13, 14)

Allowed. (E-5)

Cases Relied on :

## Text

11 All. Rajesh Singh & Anr. Vs. Margub Ali & Ors.
865
(2021)11ILR A865
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.09.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 3018 of 2014

Rajesh Singh & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Margub Ali & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri V.S. Rajpoot, Sri H.M. Srivastava, Sri Ram
Shiromani Yadav, Sri S.D. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nagendra Kr. Srivastava, Sri Sanjay Singh

Civil Law - Motor Accident Death Claim - Motor
Vehicles Act,1988 - Section 166 - Enhancement
of Compensation - Wife of claimant, Smt. Rita
Singh posted as Assistant Teacher - On
19.2.2013, she was travelling as a pillion rider
on motor cycle, when a truck being driven
rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle
as a result of which Smt. Rita Singh died on the
spot itself - Claimant sought enhancement of
compensation on ground that as the deceased
was below 40 years and salaried person, 50 per
cent should have been added to her income
under the head of future prospect, amount
under the head of pecuniary loss ought to have
been awarded & Interest is to be enhanced -
Insurance company resisted claim on ground
that husband cannot be considered to be
dependent on his wife, he would have his own
earnings - Held - Court fixed income of the
deceased at Rs.25,000 - Added 50% under the
head of Future Prospect - Deduction of 1⁄2
towards personal expenses as there was only
one dependent, i.e., minor son - As the
deceased was 36 years of age, multiplier of 16
and not 17 applied - Husband and son lost their
wife and mother, hence, Rs.70,000/- awarded
towards non pecuniary damages - Court found
Chandra Bhan, driver of the motorcycle to be
25% negligent therefore deducted 25% from
the amount payable by the Insurance Company
- Compensation payable to the claimants after
deduction of 25% of amount would be
Rs.27,52,500 - rate of interest should be 7.5%
from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the amount is deposited (Para 13, 14)

Allowed. (E-5)

Cases Relied on :

1. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan & ors., AIR
2013 SC 3830

2. Sunil Sharma Vs Bachitar Singh, Laws (SC)-2011-2-73

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

4. Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & ors.,
2015 LawSuit (SC) 469

5. Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri Vs Karmasey
Kunvargi Tak dt 05.08.2002 Appeal (Civil) No. 5436
of 1994

6. Raj Rani & ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Company
Limited & ors. dt 06.05.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 333318 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2792-27793
of 2008)

7. Archit Saini Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.&
ors., 2018 ) AIR (SC) 1143

8. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal & ors.,
2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)

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

10. Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., 2007(2) GLH 291

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra
Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.D. Ojha, Advocte, holding
brief of Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel for the appellants, Sri N.K. Srivastava,
learned counsel for the respondent and perused
the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and award
dated 7.8.2014 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (E.C. Act),
Rampur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
M.A.C.No.50 of 2013 awarding a sum of
Rs.1,43,616/- with interest at the rate of 6% as
compensation.

3. Facts in brief as per claim petition are
that Smt. Rita Singh wife of claimant, namely,
Rajesh Singh was posted as Assistant Teacher in
Primary School, Mohanpura, Police Station
Tanda, District Rampur. On 19.2.2013, she was
travelling as a pillion rider on motor cycle
bearing Registration No. UP 22 L 7256, which
was being driven by Sri Chandrabhan Singh.
When they reached Kharij brick-kiln, driver of a
truck bearing Registration No. U.P. 21 N. 1312
driving rashly and negligently dashed said
motorcycle as a result of which Smt. Rita Singh
sustained grievous injury and later on she died
on the spot itself. Chandrabhan Singh also
sustained injuries and motorcyle also got
damaged. Report of the accident was registered
as Crime No. 112 of 2013 at Police Station
Chowki Saidnagar under Sections 279, 304 A
I.P.C.

4. The Tribunal seems to have deducted
dearness allowance and has considered the
income to be Rs.10,560/- which, according to
Sri Ojha should not have been done in view of
the Judgment in Vimal Kanwar and others v.
Kishore Dan and others, AIR 2013 SC 3830
and Sunil Sharma Vs. Bachitar Singh, Laws
(SC)-2011-2-73. According to him, as the
deceased was below the 40 years and salaried
person, 50 per cent should have been added to
her income under the head of future prospect in
view of the decision in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is
submitted by counsel for the appellants that no
amount under the head of pecuniary loss has
been awarded by the Tribunal. Interest is also
required to be enhanced.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel,
Sri N.K. Srivastava ably assisted by Anubha
Gupta that husband cannot be considered to be
dependent on his wife. He would have his own
earnings. In the pleadings also it is not shown
that he was not having his own income. This
submission is made, we think, for deduction of
personal expenses of the deceased. Learned
counsel for the respondent contends that the
driver of the motorcycle, namely, Chandra Ban
is third party. The motorcycle belonged to
appellant no.1, namely, Rajesh Singh. It is
further submitted that finding of fact of the
Tribunal cannot be found fault with as the motor
cyle was going ahead of the truck.

6. Sri Ojha submitted that the finding of
fact recorded by the Tribunal that motorcyclist
was 90% negligent cannot be accepted. He
further submitted that even if it is assumed that
the driver Chandra Bhan Singh was negligent
qua the appellants it would be a case of
composite negligence. In support of his
submissions, he relied upon the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of T.O. Anthony Vs.
Karvarnan and others, 2008 (3) TAC 193 (SC)
and Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance
Company Limited & Others, 2015 LawSuit
(SC) 469 to contend that no amount can be
deducted from the compensation awarded from
the legal heirs of the deceased, who was not coauthor of the accident.

7. 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
11 All. Rajesh Singh & Anr. Vs. Margub Ali & Ors.
867
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 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.

8. The principle of contributory negligence
has been discussed time and again. A person
who either contributes or is author of the
accident would be liable for his contribution to
the accident having taken place.

9. 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. Clause-6 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
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
representatives, as the case may be, should be
entitled to recover damages if principle of social
justice should have any meaning at all.

20. These provisions (sec.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 threeJudge 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

10. 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.

14. There is a difference between
contributory and composite negligence. In the
case of contributory negligence, a person who
has himself contributed to the extent cannot
claim compensation for the injuries sustained by
him in the accident to the extent of his own
negligence;whereas in the case of composite
negligence, a person who has suffered has not
contributed to the accident but the outcome of
combination of negligence of two or more other
persons. This Court in T.O. Anthony v.
Karvarnan & Ors. [2008 (3) SCC 748] has held
that in case of contributory negligence, injured
need not establish the extent of responsibility of
each wrong doer separately, nor is it necessary
for the court to determine the extent of liability
of each wrong doer separately. It is only in the
case of contributory negligence that the injured
himself has contributed by his negligence in the
accident. Extent of his negligence is required to
be determined as damages recoverable by him in
respect of the injuries have to be reduced in
11 All. Rajesh Singh & Anr. Vs. Margub Ali & Ors.
869
proportion to his contributory negligence. The
relevant portion is extracted hereunder :

"6. 'Composite negligence' refers to
the negligence on the part of two or more
persons. Where a person is injured as a result of
negligence on the part of two or more wrong
doers, it is said that the person was injured on
account of the composite negligence of those
wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer,
is jointly and severally liable to the injured for
payment of the entire damages and the injured
person has the choice of proceeding against all
or any of them. In such a case, the injured need
not establish the extent of responsibility of each
wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for
the court to determine the extent of liability of
each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand
where a person suffers injury, partly due to the
negligence on the part of another person or
persons, and partly as a result of his own
negligence, then the negligence of the part of the
injured which contributed to the accident is
referred to as his contributory negligence.
Where the injured is guilty of some negligence,
his claim for damages is not defeated merely by
reason of the negligence on his part but the
damages recoverable by him in respect of the
injuries stands reduced in proportion to his
contributory negligence.

7. Therefore, when two vehicles are
involved in an accident, and one of the drivers
claims compensation from the other driver
alleging negligence, and the other driver denies
negligence or claims that the injured claimant
himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary
to consider whether the injured claimant was
negligent and if so, whether he was solely or
partly responsible for the accident and the extent
of his responsibility, that is his contributory
negligence. Therefore where the injured is
himself partly liable, the principle of 'composite
negligence' will not apply nor can there be an
automatic inference that the negligence was
50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The
Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of
contributory negligence of the appellant and
thereby avoided confusion between composite
negligence and contributory negligence. The
High Court has failed to correct the said error."

This Court in Challa Bharathamma
&Nanjappan (supra) has dealt with the breach
of policy conditions by the owner when the
insurer was asked to pay the compensation fixed
by the tribunal and the right to recover the same
was given to the insurer in the executing court
concerned if the dispute between the insurer and
the
owner
was
the
subject-matter
of
determination for the tribunal and the issue has
been decided in favour of the insured. The same
analogy can be applied to the instant cases as
the liability of the joint tort feasor is joint and
several.
In
the
instant
case,
there
is
determination of inter se liability of composite
negligence to the extent of negligence of 2/3rd
and 1/3rd of respective drivers. Thus, the vehicle
? trailor-truck which was not insured with the
insurer, was negligent to the extent of 2/3rd. It
would be open to the insurer being insurer of the
bus after making payment to claimant to recover
from the owner of the trailor-truck the amount to
the
aforesaid
extent
in
the
execution
proceedings. Had there been no determination
of the inter se liability for want of evidence or
other joint tort feasor had not been impleaded, it
was not open to settle such a dispute and to
recover the amount in execution proceedings but
the remedy would be to file another suit or
appropriate proceedings in accordance with
law.

What emerges from the aforesaid
discussion is as follows :

7. (i) In the case of composite
negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue
both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to
recover the entire compensation as liability of
joint tort feasors is joint and several.

8. (ii) In the case of composite
negligence, apportionment of compensation
between two tort feasors vis a vis the
plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recover at his option whole damages from any of
them.

9. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors
have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient,
it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter
se extent of composite negligence of the drivers.
However, determination of the extent of
negligence between the joint tort feasors is only
for the purpose of their inter se liability so that
one may recover the sum from the other after
making
whole
of
payment
to
the
plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the
liability of the other. In case both of them have
been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of
their negligence has been determined by the
court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor
can recover the amount from the other in the
execution proceedings.

10. (iv) It would not be appropriate for
the court/tribunal to determine the extent of
composite negligence of the drivers of two
vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other
joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint
tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires,
to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent
proceedings after passing of the decree or
award."

emphasis added

11. The decision of the Apex Court in
Khenyei (Supra) has laid down one further
aspect about considering the negligence more
particularly
composite
and
contributory
negligence.

12. The judgments of Pramodkumar
Rasikbhai Jhaveri Vs. Karmasey Kunvargi
Tak and others decided on 05.08.2002 in
Appeal (Civil) No. 5436 of 1994, (2) Raj Rani
and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited and others decided on 06.05.2009 in
Civil Appeal No. 33-3318 of 2009 (Arising out
of SLP (C) Nos. 2792-27793 of 2008) and (3)
Archit Saini Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. And others, 2018 ) AIR (SC) 1143, will
also permit us to revaluate the percentage of the
negligence of the deceased. The Tribunal has
held that the deceased too was negligent in
driving the vehicle.

13. Having heard both the counsel while
going through the site plan, the magnitude of the
accident and the principle, which is enunciated
time and again, we are of the view that the driver
of motor vehicle has to be more cautious on the
Highway. The driver of the truck has not stepped
into the witness box. Charge sheet was laid
down against him. There was instantaneous
death of the deceased on the spot which shows
he tried to overtake a motor cycle. Looking to
the totality of facts and circumstances, we hold
Chandra Bhan, driver of the motorcycle to be
25% negligent. Judgment of Khenyei (supra)
would give recovery right of 25% from the
driver or owner. In our case, owner is appellant
no.1 himself, hence, instead of going into the
fresh cases of recovery, it would be better for us
to deduct of 25% from the amount payable by
the Insurance Company.

14. This takes us towards consideration of
compensation amount to be awarded in the facts
of the present case. We may fix income of the
deceased as Rs.25,000/- as out of Rs.26468
certain amount has to be deducted to which 50%
requires to be added under the head of Future
Prospect. Deduction of is required towards
personal expenses as there was only one
dependent, ie., minor son. As the deceased was
36 years of age, multiplier of 16 and not 17
would apply . Husband and son have lost their
wife and mother, hence, Rs.70,000/- is awarded
towards non pecuniary damages.

15. 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.25,000 p.m.
11 All. Rajesh Singh & Anr. Vs. Margub Ali & Ors.
871

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: Rs.12,500/-

iii.
Total
income
:
Rs.25,000/-
+Rs.12,500/- = Rs.37,500/-

iv. Income after deduction of towards
personal expenses : Rs.18,750/-

v. Annual income : Rs.18,750/- x 12 =
Rs.2,25,000/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 16

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.2,25,000/-
x 16 = Rs.36,00,000/-

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

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.36,70,000/-

16. Compensation payable to the claimants
after deduction of 25% of amount would be
Rs.27,52,500/-.

17. 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."

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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 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. Amount for the minor
child be kept in fixed deposit till he attains
majority.

21. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in
the above petition by the tribunal as per the
modification made herein. The Tribunals in the
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

22. Record be sent back to the Tribunal.
----------
(2021)11ILR A872
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 3065 of 2013

Smt. Sita Rai & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
The NIACL, Ghazipur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, Sri Shashi Kant
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nishant Mehrotra

Civil Law - Accidental Death - Motor Accident
Claim - Motor Vehicles Act ,1988 - Section 168
- Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988 -
Enhancement of Compensation - deceased
below the age of 60 years & was in permanent
job, survived by two major sons & father - net
income of the deceased, after the deduction of
income tax, was Rs.7,49,562/- per annum, as
per ITR for the year in which accident took
place - Tribunal illegally held that since
deceased was to retire in near future so his
income should be considered at Rs.3,000 per
month - future loss of income - in view of 1988
Rules court granted 15% addition towards
future loss of income as the deceased was
below the age of 60 years and was in
permanent job - deductions towards personal
expenses
-
deductions
towards
personal
expenses would be 1/2 as the deceased was
survived by two major sons & father who
cannot be considered to be dependent upon the
deceased - Pension - pension cannot be
deducted from the amount admissible to the
legal heirs - Multiplier - multiplier would be 9
as the deceased was in the age bracket of 5660 on the date of accident - non-pecuniary
damages - amount under the head of nonpecuniary damages Rs. 70,000/- + 10%
increase in every three years - Court granted
grant Rs. 80,000/- under the head of non
pecuniary damages - Total compensation of
Rs.39,59,000/- awarded with - Insurance
Company directed to deposit the amount
within a period of 12 weeks with interest at the
rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the amount is deposited - order of
investment was not passed because applicants
/claimants are neither illiterate or rustic
villagers - total amount of interest, accrued on
the principal amount of compensation is to be
apportioned on financial year to financial year
basis - if 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 (Para 10, 11, 13, 14, 19)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

1. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs. Kishore Dan & ors., (2013)
7 SCC 476

2. Rajesh Singh & anr. Vs. Margub Ali & ors. First
Appeal From Order No.3010 of 2014 decided on
27.9.2021

3. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
& anr., 2009 LawSuit (SC) 613

4. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050

5. Smt. Parvati @ Baby & ors. Vs. Hollu Hallappa,
1999 ACJ 344

6. Subhadra Pandey Vs. Siddarth Agrawal First Appeal
From Order No.1237 of 2018 decided on 7.12.2020