# Smt. Girija Singh @ Girija Devi & Ors v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 851
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-01
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 638 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-girija-singh-girija-devi-ors-v-national-insurance-co-ltd-ors-46648
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim - Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
-
Section
168
-
Compensation - appeal on behalf of claimants
against quantum of compensation - deceased a
retired
Army
Personnel,
after
retirement
worked as defence security guard, getting
salary of Rs. 37,039/- & pension of Rs.
15,069/- total income Rs. 52,108/- per month
after all deductions - Tribunal assessed income
Rs. 22,000/- on the basis of the ITR Form 16 of
the assessment year 2013-14 - Tribunal halved
total income on the ground that 50% liability
of the deceased has been discharged as they
have got their daughter married - Held - this
finding untenable - Tribunal should have
computed the income of the deceased on the
basis of income which he was getting after
retirement therefore monthly income of the
deceased would be Rs. 37,039 - future
prospects 15% - deceased left behind widow,
one son & a married daughter - married
daughter was not dependent on the deceased
so 1/3rd should have been deducted for the
personal expenses of the deceased - Multiplier
applicable 9 - Amount under non-pecuniary
head Rs. 70,000 - Total compensation Rs.
31,36,876 - rate of interest 7.5% (Para 14, 16)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Smt. Girija Singh @ Girija Devi & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
851
Appellate Court is set aside and that of the Trial
Court restored.
----------
(2021)11ILR A851
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 638 of 2021

Smt. Girija Singh @ Girija Devi & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Deepali Srivastava Sinha, Sri Vidya Kant
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Avdhesh Chandra Nigam

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim - Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
-
Section
168
-
Compensation - appeal on behalf of claimants
against quantum of compensation - deceased a
retired
Army
Personnel,
after
retirement
worked as defence security guard, getting
salary of Rs. 37,039/- & pension of Rs.
15,069/- total income Rs. 52,108/- per month
after all deductions - Tribunal assessed income
Rs. 22,000/- on the basis of the ITR Form 16 of
the assessment year 2013-14 - Tribunal halved
total income on the ground that 50% liability
of the deceased has been discharged as they
have got their daughter married - Held - this
finding untenable - Tribunal should have
computed the income of the deceased on the
basis of income which he was getting after
retirement therefore monthly income of the
deceased would be Rs. 37,039 - future
prospects 15% - deceased left behind widow,
one son & a married daughter - married
daughter was not dependent on the deceased
so 1/3rd should have been deducted for the
personal expenses of the deceased - Multiplier
applicable 9 - Amount under non-pecuniary
head Rs. 70,000 - Total compensation Rs.
31,36,876 - rate of interest 7.5% (Para 14, 16)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vimal Kanwar & ors Vs Kishore Dan ors. 2013 (3)
TAC 6(SC)

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

3. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Urmila
Shukla & ors. LL 2021 SC 359

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

5. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., 2007(2) GLH 291

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

7. Tej Kumari Sharma Vs Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Insurance Co. Ltd. First Appeal From Order
No.2871 of 2016 19.3.2021

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

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants
and Sri Avdhesh Chandra Nigam for the
respondents.

2. The instant appeal is at the behest of
claimants against the award dated 10.2.2021
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Gorakhpur, in M.A.C.P. No.519 of 2014.

3. The brief facts culled out from the
record are that on 19.6.2014, deceased Vinod
Kumar Singh along with his wife was going on
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his motor cycle, being numbered as UP-53-BK1402. At about 5.00 p.m. in the evening as he
reached near Village Shahjanwa, a magic Jeep
bearing no. UP-54-D-4093, which was being
driven by its driver rashly and negligently, came
from the wrong side and dashed the motorcycle
of deceased - Vinod Kumar Singh. As a result of
which, Vinod Kumar Singh and his wife both
sustained injuries and Vinod Kumar succumbed
to his injuries. The deceased was earlier in
government job and had retired from Indian
Army and was getting pension of Rs. 15,069/-
per month and after retirement, he joined
Defence Security Guard and was getting salary
of Rs. 37,039/- per month. After his death, he
left his widow, son and daughter. At the time of
accident, he was aged 56 years. An F.I.R. of this
incident was registered as case Crime No. 273 of
2014, under Sections 279/337/338/427/304-A
IPC
with
the
police
station
concerned.
Accordingly, compensation is claimed.

4. On behalf of opposite party no.2, owner of
the offending Jeep in his written statement averred
that the accident was caused on account of the
negligence on the part of the deceased himself.
The driver of the offending Jeep was driving the
Jeep proprly. The driver of the offending vehicle
was having a valid and effective licence and the
offending vehicle was also insured by opposite
party no.2.

5. On behalf of the Insurance Company,
opposite party no.3 in its written statement has
averred that the offending vehicle was not insured
and the driver of the offending vehicle was not
having a valid and effective driving licence on
account of which fundamental terms and
conditions of the Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal, after framing 5 issues, and
taking evidence oral and documentary passed the
award on 10.2.2021 and awarded a compensation
for the amount of Rs. 11,01,000/- along with 7%
simple interest on the amount from the date of
claim petition up to the date of actual payment.

7. The instant appeal on behalf of the
claimants has been preferred against the quantum
of compensation. Learned Counsel for the
appellant has contended that the deceased was
retired Army Personnel and after his retirement, he
was working in defence security guard under
Defence Ministry and was getting salary of Rs.
37,039/- and pension of Rs. 15,069/- total income
was Rs. 52,108/- per month after all deductions.
This income is proved from the documentary and
oral evidence. Moreover, Income-tax Form-16 was
also filed before the Tribunal on behalf of the
appellants to prove the income of previous year
from the date of accident. The Tribunal has
assessed the salary of the deceased on lower side in
an arbitrary manner without recording any cogent
reason. The Tribunal deducted half of the
computed compensation on the sole ground that
the deceased was discharged from half of the
liability as he had married daughter and so the
liability during his life time was discharged. It is
submitted that this deduction is bad in the eye of
law which is not supported from any authoritative
pronouncement or law.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondent -
Insurance Company on query could not bring
home his submission that the income of the
deceased was properly computed by the Tribunal
and the Tribunal was not wrong to deduct the
pension of the deceased from his income. It is
submitted that the future prospect as granted by
the Tribunal was 15%, but it should have been
10% as the deceased was above 55 years on the
date of the accident and was within the age
bracket of 56 - 60 years. The deceased has left
behind widow, one son and a married daughter.
The married daughter was not dependent on the
deceased so 1/3rd should have been deducted for
the personal expenses of the deceased in place of
1/4th as done by the Tribunal.
11 All. Smt. Girija Singh @ Girija Devi & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
853

9. On behalf of the appellants to prove the
income of the deceased PW1 - Girja Devi, PW4
- Vinay Kumar Gupta, PW3 - Lakshman Singh
have been examined on oath.

10. PW4- Vinay Kumar Gupta is a Clerk in
the office of Principal Controller of Defence
Account, Allahabad, has proved the pension slip of
deceased Vinod Kumar and deposed that Vinod
Kumar Singh was getting pension of Rs.13,206/-
per month in the month of May, 2014 and this
certificate has been issued by the authorities of his
department which he had brought and proved the
same by producing the same.

11. PW3 - Lakshman Singh deposed so as
to prove the salary slip of deceased Vinod
Kumar Singh and deposed that deceased Vinod
Kumar Singh was employed along with him in
Defence Security Corps department, Gorakhpur.
His pay slip for the month of May 2014 and
June 2014 was produced by him along with
covering letter of the department. As per the
record, the salary of deceased Vinod Kumar
Singh was Rs. 37,039/-. Photostat copy of
original salary slip which was certified was filed
by him before the Tribunal.

12. The salary slip of the deceased - Vinod
Kumar Singh of the month of May, 2014, is
paper no.47-C/3 and 47-C/4. It reflects the salary
of deceased to be Rs. 37,039/-. The deductions
which can be made from his salary is income-tax
only as per decisions of Apex Court in Vimal
Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and
others, 2013 (3) TAC 6(SC) and in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and
Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.).

13. So far as the pension of the deceased is
concerned, in paper no. 92-ga, the pension of
deceased is shown to be Rs. 13,206/-.

14. The Tribunal has computed the income
of the deceased to be Rs. 22,000/- per month
ignoring the documentary evidence about the
payment which the deceased was getting before
the accident. The Tribunal had assessed the
income of the deceased Rs. 22,000/- on the basis
of the Income-tax Return Form 16. The Incometax Return Form-16, which is paper no.73-C
concerns the assessment year 2013-14 annual
salary of the deceased is shown Rs.2,82,068/-.
On the basis of the Form-16, how the Tribunal
has computed monthly income of the deceased
to be Rs. 22,000/- is beyond comprehension.
The Tribunal has again halved half of the total
income after having computed the same on the
ground that 50% liability of the deceased has
been discharged as they have got their daughter
married, this finding is untenable. The Tribunal
should have computed the income of the
deceased on the basis of income which he was
getting after retirement in Defence Security
Corps department, therefore, the monthly
income of the deceased would be Rs. 37,039.00.

15. As far as future prospect is concerned,
we are supported in our view by the decision of
the Apex Court in New India Assurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Urmila Shukla and others,
LL 2021 SC 359 and hold that the finding of the
Tribunal as far as future prospect is concerned is
just and proper.

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

i. Income Rs. 37,039/- per month.

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: 15% namely Rs. 5,556/- (round figure)

iii. Total income : Rs. 37,039 + 5,556
= Rs. 42,595/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd :
Rs. 28,397/- (rounded up )

v. Annual income : Rs. 28,397 x 12 =
Rs. 3,40,764/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 9

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs. 3,40,764
x 9 = Rs. 30,66,876/-
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.
31,36,876/-

17. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the decision
of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, reported in 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."

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

19. 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
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.

20. 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.

21. This Court is thankful to both the learned
Advocates for getting this matter disposed of during
this pandemic.
----------
(2021)11ILR A854
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 649 of 2017

Smt. Vimla Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
Krishna Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Singh, Sri Amit Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajkapoor Upadhyay, Sri Radhey Shyam, Sri
N.K. Srivastava

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim - Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
-
Section
168
-