# Smt. Dareshwati & Anr v. Meerut City Transport Services Ltd.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 258
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-30
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 1408 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-dareshwati-anr-v-meerut-city-transport-services-ltd-ors-46261
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Sunil Kumar Misra

(A) Quantum of Compensation - The
calculation has to be done namely, (i) the
income of deceased; (ii) then ass future loss of
income; (iii) then deduct the personal expenses
of deceased as per dependents; (iv) add
multiplier as per age of deceased not that of
dependents; (v) add pecuniary damages; and
(vi) interest as per provisions of Section 171
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and if there is
negligence
attributable
to
deceased,
no
deduction. (Para 6)

Appeal Partly Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. 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."

16. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Oral cross objections is
allowed as far as certain calculation is
concerned and compensation is recalculated.
Judgment and award 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. The Insurance
Company will deposit the entire amount.

17. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 and this High
Court in , 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) and in First Appeal From Order
No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v.
Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance
Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021 while
disbursing the amount.

18. Record be sent back to tribunal
forthwith.

19. This Court is thankful to both the
learned Advocates for getting this matter
disposed of during this pandemic.
----------
(2021)10ILR A258
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 30.09.2021

BEFORE

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

FAFO No. 1408 of 2021

Smt. Dareshwati & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
Meerut City Transport Services Ltd.& Ors.
 ...Respondents
10 All. Smt. Dareshwati & Anr. Vs. Meerut City Transport Services Ltd. & Ors.
259
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Pranshu Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sunil Kumar Misra

(A) Quantum of Compensation - The
calculation has to be done namely, (i) the
income of deceased; (ii) then ass future loss of
income; (iii) then deduct the personal expenses
of deceased as per dependents; (iv) add
multiplier as per age of deceased not that of
dependents; (v) add pecuniary damages; and
(vi) interest as per provisions of Section 171
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and if there is
negligence
attributable
to
deceased,
no
deduction. (Para 6)

Appeal Partly Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
Ors. 2017 0 Supreme (SC) (followed)

2. Munna Lal Jain & anr. Vs Vipin Kumar Sharma
& ors. 2015 Law Suit (SC) 536

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

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

5. Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. 2007 (2) GLH 291 (followed)

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

1. Heard Sri Pranshu Gupta, learned
counsel for the appellants, Sri S.K. Mishra,
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 22.1.2021 passed by Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Meerut
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
M.A.C.No.65 of 2018 awarding a sum of
Rs.7,66,134/- with interest at the rate of 7%
as compensation. 3. Despite

3. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal
is not in dispute. The respondent has not
challenged the liability imposed on them.
The only issue to be decided is, the
quantum of compensation awarded.

4. Despite the fact that the Tribunal
has referred to the Judgment of the Apex
Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,
2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050, it has held
that law prescribes that multiplier is
applicable to the age of the parent which is
vehemently objected by Sri Pranshu Gupta
that the Tribunal has misread the law on the
point.

5. Judgment in Munna Lal Jain and
another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and
others, 2015 Law Suit (SC) 536 and
Pranay Sethi (supra) would not permit us
to concur with the Tribunal as the
multiplier has to be as per the age of the
deceased. In that view of the matter, the
finding of the Tribunal in para 31 is
reversed. Multiplier of 17 would be
applicable in the present case.

6. This now takes us to the quantum
awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal
has fallen in error and has misdirected
itself in granting what can be said to be
40% under the head of future loss of
income.
Pranay
Sethi
(supra)
only
bifurcates self employed, non-employed
and people who are in employment.
Evidence categorically shows that the
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased was working as peon in ICICI
Bank Branch Bachcha Park, Meerut and
was getting salary also, which is clear
from paragraph 29. He had joined in the
pay scale of Rs.8,810/- which thereafter
was increased to Rs.11,047/-. However,
the amount of Rs.10,617/- was deposited
in the month of 2017 in his bank accounts
and, therefore, we also consider the same
as his income.We are unable to be accept
the submission of Sri Mishra that 40%
awarded by the Tribunal is just and
proper. It should be 50%. One more
aspect is noted namely that the Tribunal
has considered the income, namely
Rs.10617/- then deducted 1/2 as expenses
of deceased, who was bachelor, and then
added 40% which cannot be done. The
caluculation
has
to
be
considered,
namely, (a) the income of deceased; (b)
then add future loss of income (c) then
deduct the personal expenses of deceased
as per dependents; (d) add multiplier as
per
age
of
deceased
not
that
of
dependents;
(e)
add
non
pecuniary
damages;
and
(f)
interest
as
per
provisions of Section 171 Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 and if there is negligence
attributable to deceased, no deduction.
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.10,617/- p.m.

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects (50%) : Rs.5,308/- (rounded up)

iii. Total income : Rs.10,617/-
+Rs.5,308/- = Rs.15,925/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/2
towards personal expenses : Rs.7,962/-
(rounded up)

v. Annual income : Rs.7,962/- x
12 = Rs.95,544/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 17

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.95,544/- x 17 = Rs.16,24,248/-

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

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.16,94,248/-

7. 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."

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

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.
10 All. Sanjay Kumar Sadwani & Anr. Vs. M/S Ramlal & Sons & Ors.
261
Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of
investment be passed.

10. 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 has to be apportioned in
every financial year to financial year basis
and if the interest payable to claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
taxable
limits,
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.

11. 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.

12.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein. The Registrar General is requested
to forward the Judgment to learned
Presiding Authority of the Tribunal so that
such glaring errors are not committed in
future.
----------
(2021)10ILR A261
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 31.08.2021

BEFORE

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

FAFO No. 1519 of 2020

Sanjay Kumar Sadwani & Anr....Appellants
Versus
M/S Ramlal & Sons & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shreesh Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pawan Kumar Singh

(A) Appeal - The claim petition under the
provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has to be
decided with all preponderance of probability
and on taking holistic approach in such matters.
(Para 14)

Appeal Disposed of. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sunita & ors. Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation & anr. 2019 LawSuit (SC) 190

2. Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
ors. 2018 LawSuit (SC) 303

3. Parshuram Pal Vs Ram Lakhan 2014 (1) TAC
621

4. Jai Prakash Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(2010) 2 SCC 607