# Shyamu & Ors v. Rashid Ahamad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 318
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-09
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2427 of 2010
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shyamu-ors-v-rashid-ahamad-ors-48521
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Section 166(2) - Territorial jurisdiction -
Office of the Insurance Co. is situated at
District Shahjahanpur and the Co. has its
business at Shahjahanpur - Held, the
Tribunal
at
Shahjahanpur
had
the
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.
The Tribunal has clearly erred in holding
that
the
claim
petition
was
not
maintainable in Shahjahanpur - Malati
Sardar's case of Supreme Court relied
upon. (Para 14 and 16)

B. Motor Accident Claim - Determination
of compensation - Notional income -
Deceased was working as household help
- No documentary proof of income of
deceased produced - Held, it would be
just
and
proper
to
determine
compensation on the notional income of
the
deceased
which
would
be
the
minimum wages payable to a daily wager
in 2004, i.e., at the rate of Rs. 100/- per
day or Rs. 3,000/- per month - J.K.
Trivedi's case relied upon - High Court
computed the compensation by adding
40%
future
prospect
and
applying
multiplier of 16 and further adding Rs.
40,000 as towards the loss of spousal
consortium and parental consortium - 7%
rate of interest was also awarded. (Para
21, 22, 24, 26, 27 and 28)
Appeal allowed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

28. 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.

29. We are thankful to learned
counsels for the parties for ably assisting
the Court.

30. Record be sent back to court
below forthwith, if any.
----------

(2022)05ILR A318
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2427 of 2010

Shyamu & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rashid Ahamad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Sanjay Singh, Sri Amrendra Nath Rai

Counsel for the Resondents:
Sri Ajai Singh

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Section 166(2) - Territorial jurisdiction -
Office of the Insurance Co. is situated at
District Shahjahanpur and the Co. has its
business at Shahjahanpur - Held, the
Tribunal
at
Shahjahanpur
had
the
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.
The Tribunal has clearly erred in holding
that
the
claim
petition
was
not
maintainable in Shahjahanpur - Malati
Sardar's case of Supreme Court relied
upon. (Para 14 and 16)

B. Motor Accident Claim - Determination
of compensation - Notional income -
Deceased was working as household help
- No documentary proof of income of
deceased produced - Held, it would be
just
and
proper
to
determine
compensation on the notional income of
the
deceased
which
would
be
the
minimum wages payable to a daily wager
in 2004, i.e., at the rate of Rs. 100/- per
day or Rs. 3,000/- per month - J.K.
Trivedi's case relied upon - High Court
computed the compensation by adding
40%
future
prospect
and
applying
multiplier of 16 and further adding Rs.
40,000 as towards the loss of spousal
consortium and parental consortium - 7%
rate of interest was also awarded. (Para
21, 22, 24, 26, 27 and 28)
Appeal allowed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Mantoo Sarkar Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.;
2009(2) SCC 244
2. Malati Sardar Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.
& ors. 2016 (3) SCC 43
3. Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi Vs Kasam Daud
Kumbhar & ors. 2015 (4) SCC 237
4. Sarla Verma (Smt) & Others Vs Delhi
Transport Corp. & anr.; 2009 (6) SCC 121
5. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680
6. Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu
Ram, (2018) SCC OnLine SC 1546
5 All. Shyamu & Ors. Vs. Rashid Ahamad & Ors.
319
(Delivered by Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.)

1. This is a claimants' appeal filed
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act,
1988') against the judgment and order dated
6.3.2010 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Court
No.
1,
Shahjahanpur (hereinafter referred to as,
'Tribunal')
in
Motor Accident
Claim
Petition No. 9 of 2005 (Shyamu & Others
Vs. Rashid Ahamad & Others).

2. In view of the office report dated
2.1.2019
service
of
notice
on
the
defendants-respondents
is
deemed
sufficient.
Nobody
has
appeared
for
opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Ajai
Singh, Advocate, appeared for opposite
party No. 3 and was heard in opposition to
the present appeal.

3. The appellants instituted Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 9 of 2005
claiming compensation of Rs. 8,48,000/-
from the defendants-opposite parties for
death of Smt. Rama Devi. The claim
petition was filed in December, 2004.
Appellant No. 1 is the husband of Smt.
Rama Devi and appellant Nos. 2 to 7 are
the sons and daughters of Smt. Rama Devi.
Appellant Nos. 2 to 7 were minor at the
time of death of Smt. Rama Devi. It is
alleged in the claim petition that on
11.10.2004, Smt. Rama Devi was going
with Radhey Shyam (brother of appellant
No. 1) to purchase medicine for her son-
appellant No. 7. Smt. Rama Devi was
sitting on the back-carrier of the bicycle of
Radhey Shyam. It is alleged that a truck
bearing Registration No. U.P. 31 E 0242
(hereinafter referred to as, 'offending
vehicle') hit the bicycle, as a result of which
Smt. Rama Devi fell down and suffered
injuries causing her death. It is alleged that
the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by its driver. In the claim petition the age of
the deceased is stated to be 32 years. It is
stated in the claim petition that the
deceased was working as a household
helper and earned Rs. 6,000/- per month. It
is stated that the vehicle was insured with
the National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional
Office
Sadar
Bazar,
Shahjahanpur, i.e., opposite party No. 3.
Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are the owner
and the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 did
not appear in the Tribunal and did not file
their
written
statement,
therefore,
proceedings were held ex-parte against
them. Opposite party No. 3 filed its written
statement denying the accident as well as
the negligence of the driver of the vehicle
in causing the accident and also contested
the amount of compensation sought by the
claimants-appellants. It appears from the
records, that the Insurance Company also
filed an application under Section 170 of
the Act, 1988 praying for permission to
contest the claim on grounds available
against the owner and driver of the vehicle.

5. It is relevant to note that a First
Information Report registering Case Crime
No. 1240 of 2004, under Sections 279, 338
and 304A I.P.C. was registered against
opposite party No. 2, the driver of the
vehicle, at the instance of Ramu, brother of
appellant No. 1. In the aforesaid Case
Crime No. 1240 of 2004, charge-sheet was
filed against opposite party No. 2. Radhey
Shyam, referred above, has been named as
a prosecution witness in the charge-sheet.

6. The Tribunal framed four issues.
Issue No. 1 was as to whether the accident
which took place on 10.11.2004 killing
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Smt. Rama Devi was because of the rash
and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by its driver. Issue No. 2 was as to
whether the offending vehicle was insured
with opposite party No. 3. Issue No. 3 was
as to whether at the time of accident, the
driver of the vehicle had a valid driving
license. Issue No. 4 was as to whether the
claimants
were
entitled
to
any
compensation and the defendant liable to
pay compensation.

7. Before the Tribunal, the claimants
filed a copy of the first information report,
the postmortem report of Smt. Rama Devi,
copy of the charge-sheet, inquest report, the
policy cover note of the offending vehicle
and a copy of the driving license of
opposite party No. 2.

8. In the Tribunal, the appellant No. 1
appeared as A.P.W.1., Ramu who is the
brother of the appellant No. 1 and lodged
the first information report appeared as
A.P.W. 2 and Radhey Shyam, who was
with the deceased at the time of accident
appeared as A.P.W. 3 to prove the case of
the claimants. The defendants, which
included the Insurance Company, did not
produce any documentary or oral evidence
in the case.

9. The Tribunal after considering the
testimony of A.P.W. 3, who is an eyewitness of the accident, and also after
taking note that in Case Crime No. 1240 of
2004 a charge-sheet had been filed against
opposite party No. 2, i.e., the driver of the
vehicle decided issue No. 1 in favour of the
claimants and held that Smt. Rama Devi
died on 10.11.2004 in the accident caused
due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. While deciding Issue
No. 1 in favour of the claimants, the
Tribunal also considered the postmortem
report of the deceased which indicated that
death was due to antimortem injuries
caused in the accident. Issue Nos. 2 and 3
were decided in favour of the owner of the
offending vehicle and it was held that the
offending
vehicle
was
insured
with
opposite party No. 3 and at the time of
accident, the driver of the offending vehicle
had a valid driving license. However, on
issue No. 4, the Tribunal held that the claim
petition was not maintainable before the
Tribunal, i.e., Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Shahjahanpur, as the accident
took place in District-Lakhimpur Kheri and
the claimants as well as the owner and
driver of the offending vehicle were also
residents of District-Lakhimpur Kheri.

10. In the Claims Tribunal the
claimants had filed, a residence certificate
dated 29.7.2009 issued by the Senior Block
Pramukh,
Bhawalkheda,
DistrictShahjahanpur, marked as Paper No. 65Ga,
certifying that the claimants were residing
in District-Shahjahanpur for the last almost
four and half years. The Claims Tribunal
held that the aforesaid residence certificate
only proved that the claimants were
residents of District-Shahjahanpur from
January 2005 and were not residents of
District-Shahjahanpur in December, 2004
when the claim petition was filed. On the
aforesaid ground, the Claims Tribunal
rejected the claim petition. Hence, the
present appeal.

11. It was argued by the counsel for
the appellant that under Section 166(2) of
the Act, 1988, the claim petition was
maintainable before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Shahjahanpur because the
Office of the Insurance Company was
situated in District-Shahjahanpur. It was
argued that, even otherwise, the residence
certificate produced by the claimants-
5 All. Shyamu & Ors. Vs. Rashid Ahamad & Ors.
321
appellants indicated that the claimantappellants were residents of DistrictShahjahanpur and the Tribunal has misread
Paper No. 65Ga, i.e., the residence
certificate issued by the Senior Block
Pramukh,
Bhawalkheda,
DistrictShahjahanpur. It was argued that in light of
the aforesaid, the claim petition was
maintainable
before
the
Tribunal
at
Shahjahanpur and in light of the findings
recorded by the Tribunal on other issues,
the
claimants
were
entitled
to
compensation. It was argued that for the
aforesaid reasons, the appeal is to be
allowed, the order dated 6.3.2010 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court
No. 1, Shahjahanpur is liable to be set aside
and the claimants-appellants may be
awarded compensation. In support of his
contention, the counsel for the appellant
has relied on the following judgements of
the Supreme Court :-

(a) Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (2) SCC 244

(b) Malati Sardar Vs. National
Insurance Company Limited & Others,
2016 (3) SCC 43

12. Rebutting the argument of the
counsel for the appellants, Shri Ajai Singh,
Advocate, representing opposite party No.
3 has supported the award of the Tribunal
and the reasons given in the same. The
counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has
argued that because the owner and the
driver of the offending vehicle as well as
the claimants were residents of DistrictLakhimpur Kheri and the accident also
occurred in District-Lakhimpur Kheri,
therefore, the claim petition was not
maintainable before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Shahjahanpur and the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rightly
dismissed the aforesaid claim petition. It
was argued that for the aforesaid reasons,
the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13. I have considered the submissions
of the counsel for the parties and have also
perused the lower court records.

14. So far as the issue regarding
jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Shahjahanpur
is concerned, Section 166(2) of the Act,
1988 provides as follows :-

"[(2) Every application under
sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option
of the claimant, either to the Claims
Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area
in which the accident occurred or to the
Claims Tribunal within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or
carries on business or within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant
resides, and shall be in such form and
contain such particulars as may be
prescribed:

Provided that where no claim for
compensation under section 140 is made in
such application, the application shall
contain a separate statement to that effect
immediately before the signature of the
applicant.]"

(Emphasis added)

15. In Malati Sardar (Supra), the
accident took place at Hoogly and the
claimant also resided at Hoogly, but the
claim petition was filed at Kolkata. The
Principal Office of the Insurance Company,
which was held liable to pay compensation,
was situated at Kolkata. The Tribunal at
Kolkata awarded compensation, but in
appeal the said award was set aside on
jurisdictional ground. It was argued before
the Supreme Court that the residence of a
juristic person included its Principal Office
and, therefore the claim petition was
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintainable
before
the
Tribunal
in
Kolkata. The Supreme Court held that
under the Act, 1988 there was no bar to a
claim petition being filed under Section
166 of the Act, 1988 at a place where the
insurance company, which is the main
contesting parties in such cases, has its
business. The observations of the Supreme
Court in paragraph Nos. 12 and 14 of its
judgement are reproduced below :-

"12. We are thus of the view that
in the face of judgment of this Court in
Mantoo Sarkar (supra), the High Court was
not justified in setting aside the award of
the Tribunal in absence of any failure of
justice even if there was merit in the plea of
lack of territorial jurisdiction. Moreover,
the fact remained that the insurance
company which was the main contesting
respondent had its business at Kolkata.

...

...

...

14. The provision in question, in
the present case, is a benevolent provision
for the victims of accidents of negligent
driving. The provision for territorial
jurisdiction
has
to
be
interpreted
consistent with the object of facilitating
remedies for the victims of accidents.
Hyper technical approach in such matters
can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar
to a claim petition being filed at a place
where the insurance company, which is
the main contesting parties in such cases,
has its business. In such cases, there is no
prejudice to any party. There is no failure
of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical
decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar
(supra), contrary view taken by the High
Court cannot be sustained. The High Court
failed to notice the provision of Section 21
CPC.

 (Emphasis added)

16. In the present case, it is not
disputed that the office of the Insurance
Company-opposite party No. 3, is situated
at District-Shahjahanpur and the Company
has its business at Shahjahanpur. Thus, in
light of the observations of the Supreme
Court in Malati Sardar (Supra), the
Tribunal
at
Shahjahanpur
had
the
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.
The Tribunal has clearly erred in holding
that the claim petition was not maintainable
in Shahjahanpur. The findings of the
Tribunal on Issue No. 4 are contrary to law
and are hereby set aside and it is held that
the claim petition was maintainable before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
District-Shahjahanpur.

17. The claim petition was contested
by the Insurance Company-opposite party
No. 3 and the claimants had led their
evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal
has recorded its findings on the other issues
framed by it. The records are before this
Court and, therefore, it would serve no
purpose to remand back the matter to the
Tribunal to only quantify the compensation
payable to the claimants. In view of the
aforesaid, this Court has perused the lower
court records to examine the findings of the
Tribunal on other issues, i.e., Issue Nos. 1,
2 and 3.

18. Radhey Shyam, A.P.W. 3 was an
eye-witness of the accident and has proved
the accident. In his testimony, A.P.W. 3 has
stated that the deceased, Smt. Rama Devi
was with him on his bicycle when the
offending vehicle, which was being driven
at a high speed, hit the bicycle from behind
as a result of which Rama Devi fell down
and was crushed by the offending vehicle.
In his testimony A.P.W. 3 has stated that the
bicycle was on the left side of the road
when the offending vehicle hit it. The
5 All. Shyamu & Ors. Vs. Rashid Ahamad & Ors.
323
witness
has
withstood
the
crossexamination of opposite party No. 3. There
is nothing to discredit the testimony of the
witness. The witness proves the claimants'
case that the accident took place due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle and Smt. Rama Devi suffered
injuries in the accident causing her death.
The records of the court below also show
that Case Crime No. 1240 of 2004 was
registered at the instance of Ramu, the
brother of appellant No. 2, who was also
examined as A.P.W. 2 before the Claims
Tribunal. In Case Crime No. 1240 of 2004
a charge-sheet has been submitted against
the opposite party No. 2, i.e., the driver of
the vehicle. The inquest report and the
postmortem report of the deceased also
show
that
death
occurred
due
to
antimortem injuries. In view of the
aforesaid, the findings of the Tribunal on
Issue No. 1, i.e., Smt. Rama Devi died
because of the injuries suffered in the
accident which took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle,
is affirmed.

19. So far as the findings of the
Tribunal on issue Nos. 2 and 3 are
concerned the same were not seriously
contested by the Insurance Company. The
policy cover note and copy of the driving
license filed in the Tribunal have not been
denied by the Insurance Company. Thus the
findings of the Tribunal on issue Nos. 2 and
3 are also confirmed and it is held that the
Insurance Company, i.e., the opposite party
No. 3, is liable to indemnify the opposite
party No. 1, the owner of the vehicle, for
the compensation payable to the appellant.

20. So far as compensation to the
claimants for the death of Smt. Rama Devi
is concerned, it may be noted that in the
claim petition, the age of the deceased is
stated to be 32 years. The postmortem
report records the age of the deceased as 29
years. However, as the claimants-appellants
have themselves stated in the claim petition
the age of the deceased to be 32 years, the
age of the deceased for determining
compensation is held to be 32 years.

21. It was stated in the claim petition
and in the testimony of A.P.W. 1 that the
deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per
month. A perusal of the testimony of
A.P.W. 2 shows that A.P.W. 2 himsef
earned only Rs. 1,500/- per month at the
time his testimony was being recorded by
the Tribunal. In his testimony A.P.W. 3 has
stated that the deceased used to earn Rs.
5,000/-
per
month.
There
is
no
documentary evidence proving the income
of
the
deceased
and
there
are
inconsistencies in the testimony of different
witnesses produced by the claimants to
prove
the
income
of
the deceased.
However, all the witnesses have testified
that
the
deceased
was
working
as
household help.

22. The Supreme Court in Jitendra
Khimshankar Trivedi Vs. Kasam Daud
Kumbhar & Others, 2015 (4) SCC 237
decided compensation for the death of a
housewife on the notional ncome of Rs.
3000/- per month. In the circumstances, it
would be just and proper to determine
compensation in the present case on the
notional income of the deceased which
would be the minimum wages payable to a
daily wager in 2004, i.e., at the rate of Rs.
100/- per day or Rs. 3,000/- per month.

23. The appellant No. 1 is the
husband of the deceased and his testimony
shows that he was not dependent on the
deceased and was himself an earning
member. Thus, the appellant No. 1 is not be
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
considered as a dependent of the deceased
while deciding the deductions to be made
for personal expenses of the deceased.
Appellant Nos. 2 to 7 are the sons and
daughters of the deceased. In light of the
judgement of the Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma
(Smt)
&
Others
Vs.
Delhi
Transport Corporation & Another, 2009
(6) SCC 121, 1/4 is to be deducted towards
the personal and living expenses of the
deceased.

24. It has already been held that the
deceased was 32 years old. The deceased
was self-employed. The accident took place
in 2004, therefore in light of the judgement
of
the
Supreme
Court
in
National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
& Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% shall
be added as future prospects to the income
of the deceased while determining the
multiplicand and in light of the judgement
of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma
(Supra), a multiplier of 16 is to be applied
while quantifying the total pecuniary
damages payable to the claimants.

25. In addition to the aforesaid, in
light of the judgement of the Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Magma
General Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Nanu Ram, (2018) SCC OnLine SC 1546,
the
claimants
are
also
entitled
to
compensation for loss of estate and for
funeral expenses as well as separate
compensation for loss of consortium, i.e.,
the appellant No. 1 is entitled to loss of
spousal consortium and appellant Nos. 2 to
7
are
entitled
to
loss
of
parental
consortium.

26. In light of the aforesaid principles,
the compensation payable to the claimants
is computed as below :-

(a) Notional Income of the
deceased Rs. 3,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.
36,000/- per annum.

(b) Deductions towards personal
expenses of the deceased (1/4 of her
income) = Rs. 9,000/-.

(c) The income of the deceased
for
determining
compensation=
Rs.
27,000/-.

(Rs. 36,000 - Rs. 9,000 = Rs.
27,000/-)

(d) Addition of 40% future
prospects to the income of the deceased :-
Rs. 27,000÷100 x 40 = Rs. 10,800/-.

(e) Thus, the multiplicand= Rs.
27,000+10,800= Rs. 37,800/-.

(f) Applying a multiplier of 16,
the total amount of pecuniary damages =
Rs. 37,800 x 16 = Rs. 6,04,800/-.

(g) Loss of spousal consortium to
appellant No. 1= Rs. 40,000/-.

(h) Loss of parental consortium to
appellant Nos. 2 to 7=

Rs. 40,000 x 6 = 2,40,000/- (Rs.
40,000/- each to appellant Nos. 2 to 7)

(i) Funeral Expenses = Rs.
15,000/-

(j) Loss of Estate
= Rs.
15,000/-

Thus, the total compensation
payable to the appellant= Rs. 9,14,800/-
.(f+g+h+i+j).

The aforesaid compensation shall
bear interest at the rate of 7% per annum
from the date of filing the claim petition till
the date of actual payment by the Insurance
Company.

27. Thus, it is held that the claimants
are entitled to a compensation of Rs.
9,14,800/- with 7% simple interest per
annum from the date of filing the petition
till the date of actual payment by the
Insurance Company.
5 All. Amit Srivastava Vs. Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors.
325

28. The appellant No. 1 would be paid
the compensation awarded for Funeral
Expenses, Loss of Estate and Loss of
Spousal Consortium with the interest
accruing on the same. Appellant Nos. 2 to 7
would be paid compensation awarded to
them for Loss of Parental Consortium with
the
interest
accruing
on
the
same.
Pecuniary damages of Rs. 6,04,800/-
quantified above alongwith the interest
accruing on the same shall be divided
equally between the appellant Nos. 2 to 7.

29. The opposite party No. 3, i.e.,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Shahjahanpur shall deposit the awarded
amount (including the interest) in the
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Shahjahanpur within three months from
today. The amount so deposited by the
National Insurance Company Limited,
Shahjahanpur shall be deposited by the
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Shahjahanpur in the highest interest
bearing fixed deposit schemes, either of
the post office or of any nationalized
bank. The receipts of the fixed deposit
shall be given to the appellants who
shall be
entitled
to withdraw
the
maturity amount when the fixed deposits
mature. The maturity amount shall be
credited by the bank/post office in any
savings account of the appellants. The
concerned bank or post office shall not
permit any loan or advance against the
fixed deposits made in favour of the
appellants.
The
Tribunal,
while
depositing the amount in any fixed
deposit scheme, shall communicate the
directions issued by this Court to the
concerned bank/post office. In case, the
opposite party No. 3 fails to deposit the
awarded amount within three months
from today, the Tribunal shall recover
the same in accordance with law.

30. With the aforesaid directions and
observations, the appeal is allowed. Parties
shall bear their own cost.

31. Office shall transmit the records
of the case to the Tribunal, at the earliest.
----------
(2022)05ILR A325
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
&
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3139 of 2016

Amit Srivastava ...Appellant
Versus
Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Adil Jamal

Counsel for the Resondents:
Sri Vivek Saran

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Claim - Determination of compensation -
Claimant's leg got shortened and he
became 80% disabled due to grievous
injuries in his leg received in the accident
- Admittedly the claimant was a MBA
student and he had potential to earn good
amount of money after getting his course
completed - High Court held the income of
the claimant at least Rs. 10,000 per month
and
accordingly
re-computed
the
compensation applying multiplier of 18
and awarded 7.5% interest - Basanti
Devi's case and Mannat Johal's case relied
upon. (Para 10, 15 and 19)
B. Civil Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 194A (3) (ix) - Withdraw of