# Satya Prabha Devi & Ors v. Chola Mandal M S General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 448 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-09-08 - **Case number:** FAFO No. 1093 of 2021 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-prabha-devi-ors-v-chola-mandal-m-s-general-insurance-company-ltd-ors-47429 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 176-challenge to-claim-the tribunal considered the deceased income Rs. 14,124 per month but has not granted future loss of income-Total compensation would be Rs. 29,90,000/- and rate of interest would be 6% -the insurance company shall deposit the amount within period of 12 weeks.(Para 1 to 13) The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6) List of Cases cited: ## Text 448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Adjudication Authority, Basti. Further he was never served with any notice. 10. Secondly, we have tried to balance the respondent by deposit of 50% of the amount under the order impugned. The amount deposited is sought to be substantiated by the Supplementary affidavit. Normally we could not accept the affidavit in Court rather direct to file the same in the registry because the matter is being disposed of finally, hence we accept it and the same be taken on record. 11. The deposit shall be subject to result of the appeal. The appellate authority will decide the matter afresh after providing full opportunity to the parties within a period of twelve weeks from today. 12. We are thankful to the counsel for the parties who have assisted the Court in disposing of this appeal finally. 13. Let the record of court below be sent back to the concerned Adjudication Authority, Basti. ---------- (2021)09ILR A448 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J. FAFO No. 1093 of 2021 Satya Prabha Devi & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Chola Mandal M S General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Neerja Singh, Sri Sharve Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, Sri Pawan Kumar Singh A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 176-challenge to-claim-the tribunal considered the deceased income Rs. 14,124 per month but has not granted future loss of income-Total compensation would be Rs. 29,90,000/- and rate of interest would be 6% -the insurance company shall deposit the amount within period of 12 weeks.(Para 1 to 13) The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6) List of Cases cited: 1. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transp. Corpn. (2009) 6 SCC 121 2. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 0 Supreme SC 1050 3. Sunil Sharma & ors. Bachitar Singh & ors. (2011) 3 TAC 629 4. Raghuveer Singh Matolya & ors. Vs Hari Singh Malviya & ors. (2009) IV ACC 933 SC 5. New India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Urmila Shukla & ors. in Civil Appeal No. 4634 of 2021 6. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishor Dan & ors. (2013) 30 AC 6 SC 7. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal (2012) 1 GLH SC 442 8. Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. (2007) 2 GLH 291 9. Smt Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr. FAFO No. 23 of 2001 10. Lakkamma & ors. Vs The Regional Manager M/S United India Ins. Co. Ltd. & anr. (2021) AIR SC 3301 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 9 All. Satya Prabha Devi & Ors. Vs. Chola Mandal M S General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 449 & Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.) 1. Heard ShriSharve Singh, learned counsel for the appellants; ShriPawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents; and perused the record. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 07.02.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.219 of 2016 awarding a sum of Rs.18,37,870/- with interest at the rate of 7% 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. The insurance company has instructed the counsel for the insurance company that the matter be settled as even according to the judgment of the Apex Court as issue was no longer res integra as future prospects should have been granted as per the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has requested that the Court may look into the matter from the angle of the two minor children who have lost father at a young age. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not granted 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 and The Uttar Pradedsh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 though the rules specify misinterpretation in paras 44 and 46 of the tribunal order. It appears that the tribunal has committed gross error despite reproducing the provisions, how only 20% is granted. It is further submitted that amount under nonpecuniary heads granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement. The learned counsel submitted the salary certificate of the deceased, which is shown the income of the deceased was Rs.17,550/- per month as he was Supervisor in PPAP Tokai India Rubber Pvt. Ltd. It is also submitted that as the deceased was survived by widow, one minor son, one minor daughter and parents and hence the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4 and not 1/3. The multiplier has to be as per the age of deceased. 6. 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. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 13.7.2016 causing death of Markanday Misra who was 33 years of age and left behind him, widow, two minor children and parents. The learned Judge has deducted the amount deducting allowance in the judgments of Sunil Sharma and others Bachitar Singh and others, 2011 (3) TAC 629 and Raghuveer Singh Matolya and others v. Hari Singh Malviya and others, IV (2009) ACC 933 (SC), the learned tribunal has misinterpreted 450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the said decisions, the reproduction of paras 11, 7 & 8 quoted by learned tribunal but has misread the same. The reliance on Rule 220 but unfortunately he has misread the rule while granting only 20% of the future loss which is error which is apparent on the face of the record and Shri Sharve Singh has rightly placed reliance on the recent Judgment of the Apex Court titled New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Urmila Shukla and others in Civil Appeal No. 4634 of 2021 decided on 6th August, 2021 so as to contend that this error may be given even if the respondent wants to settle the dispute. The deductions made by the learned tribunal is bad. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.14,124/- per month adding 20% of income. This could not have been done in view of the judgment of Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishor Dan and others, 2013 (3) AC 6 (SC) and Rules. We are unable to accept the submission of Shri Sharve Singh that deduction must 1/4 and not 1/3 for personal expenses. We are considering to be Rs.15,000/- per month which we feel is just and proper. To which as the deceased was age bracket of 31-35 years, 50% 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 1/3. 8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the legal heirs of the deceased in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is computed herein below: i. Income Rs.15,000/- p.m. (Rs.17550-Rs.2500 for all deductions) ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 50% namely Rs.7500/- iii. Total income : Rs. 15000 + 7500 = Rs.22500/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 : Rs.15000/- v. Annual income : Rs.15000 x 12 = Rs.1,80,000/- vi. Multiplier applicable : 16(as the deceased was in the age bracket of 3135 years) vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.1,80,000 x 16 = Rs.28,80,000/- viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,10,000/- (Rs.40,000/- to the each minor child for non pecuniary damages and Rs.30,000/- to the widow for other non pecuniary damages) ix. Total compensation : Rs.29,90,000/-. 9. 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. 10. 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 9 All. Master Pulkit Gupta & Ors. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. 451 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. 11. 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. 12. The insurance company has decided to settle the lis. The Apex Court in AIR 2021 SC 3301, Lakkamma & others. v. The Regional Manager M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd & another has accepted the submission of the insurance company that for a period when the appeal is belated. The interest shall not be paid. We will adopt the similar mode from the date of the judgment till the delay is condoned, interest be not granted. 13. 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 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the decision in the claim petition from the period when the matter remained pending, there shall be no interest. 6% from the date of the condonation of delay till the amount is deposited, as the insurance company has decided the settle the dispute interest at rate of 6% is granted. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 14. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that the matter is disposed of. 15. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal after two weeks. ---------- (2021)09ILR A451 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J. FAFO No. 1481 of 2015 Master Pulkit Gupta & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Nigamendra Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, Sri Santosh Tripathi, Sri Manviya Tripathi A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 176-challenge to-claim-deceased was working as IT Analyst in Tata Consultancy Co. and the tribunal considered her income Rs. 54,614 per month but has not granted future loss of income-the deceased was survived by four