# Smt. Geeta & Anr v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,New Delhi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 784
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-09
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 635 of 1998
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-geeta-anr-v-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-new-delhi-ors-50588
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 173--Challenge to-compensationdeceased was a contractor in U.P. Jal
Nigam-the certificate proves that income of
the deceased was Rs. 3696/- p.m to which
as self employment 40% be added as per
the judgment of Gobald Motor which had
presidential values even in those days, the
deduction of 20% lump sum has been
deprecated by the Supreme Court time and
again, the deduction of 1/3rd is not
assailed, multiplier of 16 and non pecuniary
damages be granted as per the judgment
Pranay Sethi- Thus, his income can be
considered to be Rs.3500/- per month since
the deceased was 30 years at the time of
accident, 40% of the income would have to
be added as future loss of income -
deduction would have to be of 1/3rd,
multiplier of 16 and Rs. 50,000/- for widow,
Rs.
50,000/-
for
son-Thus,
the
Total
compensation : 7,27,072/- is granted at the
rate fo 7% from the date of filing of the
claim petition till decision of the claim
petition and 6% thereafter. (Para 1 to 16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the award dated 23.01.2014 passed in
Claim Petition No.77 of 2011 shall be
modified to the extent that the claimant
shall now be entitled to a total sum of
Rs.38,000/- with interest at the rate of 7%
per annum from the date of application till
the date of its payment.

54. Thus, the three appeals, as filed by
the appellants, are partly allowed to the
aforesaid
extent.
In
the
facts
and
circumstances, there will be no order as to
costs.

55. The record of the Tribunal shall be
returned forthwith, leaving it open for the
appellants to recover the aforesaid sums
from the owner of the truck/ respondent
no.1 in accordance with law.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 784
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal from Order No. 635 of 1998

Smt. Geeta & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,New Delhi &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri B.R. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 173--Challenge to-compensationdeceased was a contractor in U.P. Jal
Nigam-the certificate proves that income of
the deceased was Rs. 3696/- p.m to which
as self employment 40% be added as per
the judgment of Gobald Motor which had
presidential values even in those days, the
deduction of 20% lump sum has been
deprecated by the Supreme Court time and
again, the deduction of 1/3rd is not
assailed, multiplier of 16 and non pecuniary
damages be granted as per the judgment
Pranay Sethi- Thus, his income can be
considered to be Rs.3500/- per month since
the deceased was 30 years at the time of
accident, 40% of the income would have to
be added as future loss of income -
deduction would have to be of 1/3rd,
multiplier of 16 and Rs. 50,000/- for widow,
Rs.
50,000/-
for
son-Thus,
the
Total
compensation : 7,27,072/- is granted at the
rate fo 7% from the date of filing of the
claim petition till decision of the claim
petition and 6% thereafter. (Para 1 to 16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal (2012) 1 GLH SC
442

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

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

4. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Pvt Ltd. Vs UOI &
ors.

5. Gobald Motor Services Ltd. & anr. Vs
R.M.K.Veluswami & ors. (1962) SCR(1) 929

6. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.
(2017) LawSuit SC 1093

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

1. Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri A.K.
Shukla, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgement and
8 All. Smt. Geeta & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Ors.
785
decree
dated
7.11.1997
passed
by
M.A.C.T/Special
Judge
(E.C.
Act),
Mainpuri
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 164 of 1996.
The accident is not in dispute. His death by
the accident is not in dispute. The issue of
negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in
dispute. The only issue to be decided is, the
quantum of compensation awarded.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that on 05.03.1996 deceased
Sahab Singh were travelling in Tempo no.
U.T.M. 9478. At about 10:00 A.M infront
of Shankar cold storage Bewar on G.T.
road the said tempo collided with truck no.
H.R. 26/6368 resulting in the death of
many persons including Sahab Singh. It is
alleged that truck no. H.R. 26/6368 was
being driven very rashly and negligently by
its deiver as a result of which accident
occurred.

4. The deceased Sahab Singh was 30
years of age was a contractor in U.P. Jal
Nigam and his legal heirs consist of his
widow and minor son. Being a contractor
in U.P. Jal Nigam there is a certificate
issued at Ex. 39 Kha pg 16 which is
mentioned in the judgment also but the
tribunal did not considered this amount and
held that the income can be considered to
be Rs. 1500/-p.m to which the deduction
was 1/3rd, 20% was granted as lum sum
compensation and at the end applied
multiplier of 15 and Rs. 1,48,000/- with
12% interest was awarded.

5. It is submitted by Sri B.R. Singh,
learned counsel for the appellants that the
certificate proves that income of the
deceased was Rs. 3696/- p.m to which as
he was a contractor and in self employment
40% be added as per the judgment of
Gobald Motor Services Ltd. and another
Vs. R.M.K.Veluswami and other, 1962,
SCR(1) 929 which had presidential values
even in those days, the deduction of 20%
lum sum has been deprecated by the
Supreme Court time and again, the
deduction
of
1/3rd
is
not
assailed,
multiplier of 16 and non pecuniary
damages be granted as per the judgment of
the Apex Court National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017
LawSuit (SC) 1093 or as per the rules
applied in U.P and the interest of 12% is
maintained. It is further submitted by Sri
B.R.Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants that no amount under the head of
future loss of income has been granted.

6. Per contra, As against this, it is
submitted by Sri A.K.Shukla, learned
counsel for the respondents that in absence
of any proof except the certificate there is
no error which calls for any interference,
however, Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel
for the respondent could not point out as to
non grant of future prospects and that
multiplier of 16 be applied.

7. After hearing the counsel for the
parties and perusing the judgment and
order impugned, this Court feels that his
income can be considered to be Rs.3500/-
per month. To which as the deceased was
30 years at the time of accident, 40% of the
income would have to be added as future
loss of income to the deceased, deduction
would have to be of 1/3rd, multiplier of 16
and Rs. 50,000/- for widow, Rs. 50,000/-
for son. The oral objection of Sri
A.K.Shukla, learned counsel is accepted.

8. Further, this Court feels that the
quantum/compensation
requires
to
be
recalculated. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants is computed
herein below:
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

i. Income : Rs.3500/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: 40% namely Rs.1400/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 3500 + 1400 =
Rs. 4900/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd :
Rs. 3266/- (rounded of)

v. Annual loss : Rs. 3266 x 12 = Rs.
39,192/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 16

vii. Total loss : Rs. 39,192 x 16 = Rs.
6,27,072/-

xii. Amount under non-pecuniary head
: Rs.1,00,000/-

xiii. Total compensation : 7,27,072/-

9. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, 7% from the date of filing of the
claim petition till decision of the claim
petition and 6% thereafter.

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

11. 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 recalculated
amount within a period of 12 weeks from
today with interest as directed above.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14.

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.

15. 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
more than 10 years have elapsed, the
8 All. Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
787
amount be deposited in the Saving Account
of claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.

16. Record be sent back to the
tribunal.

17. This Court is thankful to Sri
B.R.Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants and Sri A.K.Shukla, learned
counsel for respondents for ably assisting
this Court.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 787
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal from Order No. 665 of 1997

Pawan Kumar Agarwal ...Appellant
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri R.B.D. Mishra, Sri Sharve Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K. Mishra

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act,1988Section 173- this appeal is preferred by
the owner of the vehicle for damages
caused to the vehicle and for the loss of
business due to the said accident-claimant
is entitled to the deficit amount of Rs.
76,500/- the tribunal has held that the
accident
had
occurred
due
to
the
negligence of the bus of U.P. being driven
rashly and negligently therefore, the
appellant had been reimbursed only by
the insurance company for the salvage but
for the torturous act for loss of business it
is tort feasor who has to make good - the
vehicle was insured with the insurance
company and a sum of Rs. 58,000/- as
salvage was paid which was not just
compensation for the damages caused to
the vehicle. The vehicle in the year 1987,
if the appellant wanted to buy a new
vehicle for his survival it would have cost
him Rs. 1,25,000/- and therefore, the
remaining amount should have been
ordered to be paid by the U.P.S.R.T.C.-The
cardinal principal under the provision of
M.V. Act and as per law of torts once it is
held that the driver of U.P.S.R.T.C was
negligent, it goes without saying that the
tribunal has to award compensation for
the same-The amount of Rs. 58,000/-
cannot be said to be full payment for the
damages caused to the appellant- The
vehicle had gone in total loss and
therefore salvage was paid-This aspect
has been overlooked by the tribunal while
deciding the same issue- The tort feasor
namely
U.P.S.R.T.C
will
deposit
an
additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- with 7%
interest within 12 weeks from today
before the tribunal. (Para 3 to 7)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Colonel Bheem Singh Vs Rajnish National Ins.
Co. 1-1992 Consumer (C.P.J) pabe 205

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

1. Heard Sri Sharve Singh, learned
counsel, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for
the U.P.S.R.T.C.

2. By way of this appeal the claimant
has challenged the dismissal of claim
petition by the order dated 3.5.1997 passed
by MACT/District Judge, Saharanpur, who
dismissed claim petition No. 71 of 1988
preferred by the appellant for claiming
compensation/damages to his taxi car
bearing no. U.M.T. 7855 which collided