# Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Anr v. Sri Murari Lal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 81
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-19
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 316 of 1997
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-sharma-anr-v-sri-murari-lal-ors-50631
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 173- Death in accident-Grant of
Compensation-deceased
was
aged
30
years was a compounder working with a
doctor who has left behind him his
mother, father, widow, one son and two
daughters-The tribunal has considered his
income to be Rs. 1200/-p.m, deducted
1/3rd, granted multiplier of 16, added Rs.
10,000/- towards non pecuniary damages
and granted interest at the rate of 12%.-
income of Rs. 1200/- p.m cannot be said
to be on the lower side, the same is
maintained, 40% future prospects to be
added-Multiplier
of
17
as
per
the
judgment
of
Sarla
Verma
would
be
admissible.
Rs.

50,000/-
for
non
pecuniary damages- Total compensation :
2,78,480/-The interest on the enhanced
amount would be 7% from the date of
filing of the claim petition as that would
have been rate in the year 1997.(Para 1 to
18)
The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Sri Murari Lal & Ors.
81

The
total
compensation
would
therefore, work out to a figure of Rs.
352980+ Rs. 230000 = 582980

26. In the result, this appeal is
allowed in part. The impugned award
passed by the Tribunal is modified and the
compensation awarded enhanced to Rs.
5,82,980/-. The aforesaid sum of money
shall carry simple interest at the rate of 7%
per annum from the date of institution of
the claim petition, until realization. The
entire sum of enhanced compensation shall
be payable to the claimants in the manner
that 60% of the compensation shall go to
the widow, and out of the balance 40%, the
other four claimants shall equally share.
Any sum of money already deposited with
the Tribunal by the UPSRTC, pursuant to
the impugned award or the interim orders
passed by this Court, shall be adjusted
against the award. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 81
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 316 of 1997

Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Sri Murari Lal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Madhav Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Shukl

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 173- Death in accident-Grant of
Compensation-deceased
was
aged
30
years was a compounder working with a
doctor who has left behind him his
mother, father, widow, one son and two
daughters-The tribunal has considered his
income to be Rs. 1200/-p.m, deducted
1/3rd, granted multiplier of 16, added Rs.
10,000/- towards non pecuniary damages
and granted interest at the rate of 12%.-
income of Rs. 1200/- p.m cannot be said
to be on the lower side, the same is
maintained, 40% future prospects to be
added-Multiplier
of
17
as
per
the
judgment
of
Sarla
Verma
would
be
admissible.
Rs.

50,000/-
for
non
pecuniary damages- Total compensation :
2,78,480/-The interest on the enhanced
amount would be 7% from the date of
filing of the claim petition as that would
have been rate in the year 1997.(Para 1 to
18)
The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Lakkamma Vs United India Ins. Co. Ltd.
(2021) AIR SC 3301

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned
counsel
for
the
appellants
and
Sri
A.K.Shukl learned counsel for respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgement and
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
award
dated
8.11.1996
passed
by
M.A.C.T/7th-Additional
District
Judge,
Agra (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal")
in M.A.C. Case No. 206 of 1993. The
accident is not in dispute. The liability
fastened on the insurance company is not in
dispute. The age of the deceased is not in
dispute. The insurance company and the
owner have not challenged the judgment.
The oral objection is to the granting of
interest at 12% granted by the tribunal. The
only question which remains to be
considered in this appeal is whether the
compensation
awarded
is
just
compensation in view of the settled legal
position of law.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are on 21.03.1993 deceased Raj
Kumar Sharma was going to his village
Pathauli by bicycle on his side from Agra.
When he reached near village Baant
Sucheta and near village Pathauli a metador
coming from opposite side bearing no. U.P.
80A 9317 driven by its driver rashly and
negligently hit the bicycle of deceased as a
result of which the deceased received
grievous injuries. He had been rushed to
the S.N. Hospital for treatment but the
doctors declared him dead.

4. The deceased Raj Kumar Sharma
on the date of accident i.e on 21.03.1993
was aged 30 years was a compounder
working with a doctor who has left behind
him his mother, father, widow, one son and
two daughters. The tribunal has considered
his income to be Rs. 1200/-p.m, deducted
1/3rd, granted multiplier of 16, added Rs.
10,000/- towards non pecuniary damages
and granted interest at the rate of 12%.

5. It is submitted by Sri Madhav Jain,
learned counsel for the appellants that the
deceased was earning Rs. 2500/-p.m and
40% of this be added to future loss of income
and multiplier of 17 should be granted. It is
submitted that 1/4th of the amount should be
deducted towards personal expenses of the
deceased as the deceased was survived by
four legal representatives. The rate of interest
granted is just and proper.

6. Per contra, as against this, it is
submitted by Sri A.K.Shukl, learned counsel
for the respondents that in absence of any
proof of income Rs. 2500/- p.m cannot be
considered to be income of a compounder in
the year of accident. It is further submitted
that there is no question of granting future
loss of income as law did not subscribe to the
same and the multiplier granted is just and
proper. According to learned counsel interest
granted at 12% is exorbitantly granted.
Further, it is submitted that the matter
remained pending since 1997 till 2022 and
only on 27.02.2023, a copy of the memo of
appeal was given to the respondent and
therefore in view of the judgement of
Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. AIR 2021 SC 3301, it is submitted
that interest under Section 171 of the
M.V.Act should not be ordered for the said
period where the insurance company was not
at fault and the appellant's counsel was totally
negligent in not even getting the matter listed
on the board and getting notice issued till
year 2023.

7. After hearing Sri Madhav Jain,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
A.K.Shukl
learned
counsel
for
the
insurance company. The two claimants who
are two in number they are proforma
respondents though who were originally
arrayed as claimants, who will also
benefitted by this judgment.

8. The income of Rs. 1200/- p.m
cannot be said to be on the lower side, the
7 All. Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Sri Murari Lal & Ors.
83
same is maintained, 40% of this monthly
income would have to be added. The
deceased was aged 30 years at the time of
accident hence multiplier of 17 as per the
judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC
121, would be admissible. Rs. 50,000/- for
non pecuniary damages.

8. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants is computed
herein below:

i. Income : Rs.1200/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: 40% namely Rs.480/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 1200 + 480 =
Rs. 1680/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd :
Rs. 1120/-

v. Annual loss : Rs. 1120 x 12 = Rs.
13,440/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 17

vii. Total loss : Rs. 13,440 x 17 = Rs.
2,28,480/-

xii. Amount under non-pecuniary head
: Rs.50,000/-

xiii. Total compensation : 2,78,480/-

9. This takes this Court to the most
interesting question of rate of interest as
many matters are lying pending in this
Court since 1992 without notices been
issued, without matter being listed on board
even once, is this failure on the part of the
Registry to list the matters and/or on the
part of the learned counsels, I do not want
to delve into the same but the fact that this
appeal has remain pending since 1997
without even notices been issued to the
insurance
company.
Should
insurance
company be saddled with huge liability of
the interest. Section 171 of the M.V. Act,
16988 stipulates as follows:-

"171. Award of interest where
any claim is allowed.-Where any Claims
Tribunal allows a claim for compensation
made under this Act, such Tribunal may
direct that in addition to the amount of
compensation simple interest shall also be
paid at such rate and from such date not
earlier than the date of making the claim as
it may specify in this behalf."

10. The interest on the enhanced
amount would be 7% from the date of
filing of the claim petition as that would
have been rapo rate in the year 1997.
Thereafter, for the period for which it has
remained pending even without notices
being served a marginal rate of interest of
2% would be worked out on the total
amount, thereafter, again it would be 7%
from the date the insurance company was
represented before this Court.

11. As the matter has remain pending
for about 2 decades no amount shall be
kept in fixed deposit. The minor children
would have become major by now, the
daughters might have been married they
shall be summoned and the amount
proportionate to their share would be paid
by account payee cheque by the tribunal in
view of the judgment of A.V. Padma V/s.
Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH
(SC), 442.

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

13. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the
aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance
Company shall deposit the additional
amount within a period of 12 weeks from
today with interest as directed above.
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. 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 (supra), the order of investment is
not passed because applicants /claimants
are neither illiterate or rustic villagers.

15. 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.

16.

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.

17. 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
10 years have elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.

18. Record be sent back to the
tribunal.

19. This Court is thankful to Sri
Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri A.K.Shukl learned
counsel for respondents for getting this old
appeal disposed of.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 84
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 613 of 2019

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Anchal Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ravindra Pratap Singh

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988-
Sections
173-
enhancement
of