# Shrimati Kamlesh & Ors v. Rajendra Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 185
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-07
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 962 of 1994
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shrimati-kamlesh-ors-v-rajendra-kumar-ors-50278
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim- Impugned
award-accident and issue of negligence not
dispute-quantum
of
compensation
to
be
decided-deceased was 27 years-Tribunal -
wrongly assessed monthly income as Rs. 600-it
would be at least Rs. 900 per month in the year
of accident-deceased was in age bracket of 2630- 40 % can be granted-1/3 deduction
granted-multiplier would be 17-no-pecuniary
damages granted.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Shrimati Kamlesh & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar & Ors.
185
the Tribunal is just compensation and no
inference is called for.

15. In view of the above, this appeal
stands dismissed. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. The
amount kept in fixed deposit be forthwith
disbursed to the respondent No.1.

16. This Court is thankful to Anubhav
Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant for
getting this old matter disposed of.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 185
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 962 of 1994

Shrimati Kamlesh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Y.S. Bohra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Kumar, Sri Anubhav Sinha

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim- Impugned
award-accident and issue of negligence not
dispute-quantum
of
compensation
to
be
decided-deceased was 27 years-Tribunal -
wrongly assessed monthly income as Rs. 600-it
would be at least Rs. 900 per month in the year
of accident-deceased was in age bracket of 2630- 40 % can be granted-1/3 deduction
granted-multiplier would be 17-no-pecuniary
damages granted.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093

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

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

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

5. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442

6. Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2)
GLH 291

7. Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First
Appeal From Order No. 23 of 2001 (Smt.
Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.)

8. R/Special Civil Application No.4800 of 2021
(The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) decided on
5.4.2022.

9. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt.
Ltd. Vs U.O.I.

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

1. Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned
counsel for the appellant, Sri Anubhav
Sinha, learned counsel for respondent -
insurance
company
and
perused
the
judgment and order impugned. None
appears for owner.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimant, challenges the judgment and award
dated 11.05.1994 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No.29 of 1984
awarding
a
sum
of
Rs.85,000/-
as
compensation with interest at the rate of 12%.
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal
is also not in dispute. The only issue to be
decided is the quantum of compensation
awarded.

4. The accident took place on
08.07.1984. The deceased was 27 years of
age and was an agriculturist. DeceasedNanak Chand who was 27 years of age left
behind him, his widow and three minor
children which fact is not in dispute. The
Tribunal considered his income to be
Rs.600/- per month, granted multiplier of
20 and that is how the Tribunal has
calculated the total compensation to be
Rs.85,000/-

5. Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for
the appellant submits that the income of the
deceased should be considered to be at least
Rs.1,500/-
per
month.
It
is
further
submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants that the Tribunal has not added
any amount under the head of future loss of
income which should be granted in view of
decision in of the Apex Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It is also
submitted that the Tribunal has applied the
multiplier of 20, which would be 17 in
view of the decision of the Apex Court in
Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another,
2009 LawSuit (SC).

6. As against this, Sri Anubhav Sinha,
learned counsel for respondent-Insurance
Company has contended that multiplier of
20 granted by Tribunal is exorbitant and it
would suffice for non grant of amount
under the head of non pecuniary loss and
future loss of income. Learned counsel
further submits that in the year of accident
in the State of U.P., no future prospect was
granted. Learned counsel further submits
that even in the year of accident in 1984,
the repo rate was not 12% and interest
granted at the rate of 12 % is exorbitant.

7. Heard the learned counsels for the
parties and considered the factual data. It is
an admitted position of fact that the
Insurance Company has accepted the award
and has not challenged the same. This
Court finds that the accident occurred on
08.07.1984 causing death of Nanak Chand
who was 27 years of age at the time of
accident. The Tribunal has assessed his
income to be Rs.600/- per month which
according to this Court, in the year of
accident, would be at least Rs.900/- per
month as he was farmer. To which as the
deceased was in the age bracket of 26-30,
40% of the income will have to be added in
view of the decision of the Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi (Supra). Looking to the
general trend even in Gobald Motor
Service Ltd. and another Vs. R.M.K
Veluswami and other, 1962 SCR(1) 929,
the addition of 40% can be granted and 1/3
deduction will have to be granted. The
multiplier would be 17 to which looking to
the pendency of the matter which has been
pending here since more than 30 years.
Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of non
pecuniary damages would suffice for
claimants.

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

i. Annual Income Rs.10,800/- (
Rs.900/- per month)

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.4,320/-

iii. Total income : Rs.10,800/- +
Rs.4,320/- = Rs.15,120/-
5 All. Shrimati Kamlesh & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar & Ors.
187

iv. Income after deduction of
1/3rd
towards
personal
expenses
:
Rs.10,080/-

v. Multiplier applicable : 17vi.
Loss of dependency: Rs.10,080 x 17 =
Rs.1,71,360/-

vii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : Rs.1,00,000/-

viii.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.2,71,360/-

9. 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."

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 respondentInsurance Company shall deposit the
amount within a period of 12 weeks from
today with interest as directed above. 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. The
said decision has also been reiterated by High
Court Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application
No.4800 of 2021 (The Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax (TDS) decided on 5.4.2022.

13. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly
in the above petition by the tribunal as per
the
modification
made
herein.
The
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 188
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1109 of 2019

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Aligarh ...Appellant
Versus
Vishnu & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.T. Pandey, Sri Anupam Shyam
Dwivedi, Sri Sudhir Dixit, Sri Utkarsh Dixit,
Sri Ashutosh Pandey
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim-claimantsrespondents was injured-sustained permanent
disability up to 40 % -established by applicable
standard of evidence- unbroken chain of
evidence in the record links the accident,
injuries, medical treatment and the permanent
disability-accident caused by offending vehiclepermanent disability led to regular loss of
income-claimant is a public performer-claimant
entitled
for
future
prospects-compensation
increased from Rs.5,00,800 to Rs. 6,77,920/.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
1. Pappu Deo Yadav Vs Naresh Kumar, 2020 0
AIR (SC) 4424

2. APSRTC represented by its General Manager
Vs M. Ramadevi & ors., 2008 (3) SCC 379

3. Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Co.
Ltd. through its Branch Manager Vs Sumitra &
ors., 2018 (2) ACC 826

4. Jitendra Kimshankar Trivedi & ors. Vs Kasam
Daud Kumbhar & ors., (2015) 4 SCC 237

5. Arun Kumar Agarwal & anr. Vs National
Insurance Company Ltd. & ors., (2010) 9 SCC
218

6. Mahant Dhangir & anr. Vs Madan Mohan &
ors., AIR 1988 SC 54

7. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs Basanti
Devi, AIR 2000 SC 43

8. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Vidyawati
Devi & ors., First Appeal From Order No.2389 of
2016

9. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Suman
Mishra & ors., 2019 (5) ADJ 669

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. This instant appeal arises from the
judgment and decree/award dated on
22.2.2019, rendered by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/13th Additional District