# Smt. Kamla & Ors v. Shri Gurdeep Singh Kukreja & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 357
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-13
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1491 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kamla-ors-v-shri-gurdeep-singh-kukreja-anr-47525
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 194A (3)
(ix) - total amount of interest, accrued on
the principal amount of compensation is
to be apportioned on financial year to
financial year basis - if the interest
payable to claimant for any financial year
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exceeds
Rs.50,000/-

-

insurance
company/owner is/are entitled to deduct
appropriate amount under the head of
'Tax Deducted at Source' - enhancement
of quantum - neglience - multiplier shall
be applied according to the age of the
deceased . (Para -12)

Claimants-appellants (mother of deceased)
no.1 - along with claimant-appellant nos.2
to 5, who are brothers of the deceased -
filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition -
before Tribunal - claiming compensation
under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Tribunal
awarded
a
sum
of
Rs.2,24,500/-
as
compensation - to the claimants with
interest @ 6% simple interest per annum -
aggrieved by order - preferred appeal
for enhancement of quantum . (Para -
1,2,3,)

HELD:-Tribunal applied multiplier of 11 but
multiplier of 18 shall be applied as per the
age of the deceased. Rate of interest should
be 7.5%. Judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal
stand
modified.
Respondent-
Insurance Company shall deposit the amount
within a period of 08 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. (Para - 12,17)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

2 All. Smt. Kamla & Ors. Vs. Shri Gurdeep Singh Kukreja & Anr.
357

"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."

17. Learned Tribunal has awarded
rate of interest as 7% per annum but we are
fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the
light of the above judgment.

18. In view of the above, both the
appeals are partly allowed. Judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal shall stand
modified to the aforesaid extent. The
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.

19. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
[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 claimants 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.
----------
(2022)02ILR A357
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1491 of 2021

Smt. Kamla & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Shri Gurdeep Singh Kukreja & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.C. Kesarwani

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dharmendra Kumar, Sri Rahul Chaudhary

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 194A (3)
(ix) - total amount of interest, accrued on
the principal amount of compensation is
to be apportioned on financial year to
financial year basis - if the interest
payable to claimant for any financial year
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exceeds
Rs.50,000/-

-

insurance
company/owner is/are entitled to deduct
appropriate amount under the head of
'Tax Deducted at Source' - enhancement
of quantum - neglience - multiplier shall
be applied according to the age of the
deceased . (Para -12)

Claimants-appellants (mother of deceased)
no.1 - along with claimant-appellant nos.2
to 5, who are brothers of the deceased -
filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition -
before Tribunal - claiming compensation
under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Tribunal
awarded
a
sum
of
Rs.2,24,500/-
as
compensation - to the claimants with
interest @ 6% simple interest per annum -
aggrieved by order - preferred appeal
for enhancement of quantum . (Para -
1,2,3,)

HELD:-Tribunal applied multiplier of 11 but
multiplier of 18 shall be applied as per the
age of the deceased. Rate of interest should
be 7.5%. Judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal
stand
modified.
Respondent-
Insurance Company shall deposit the amount
within a period of 08 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. (Para - 12,17)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Munna Lal Jain Vs Vipin Kumar Sharma ,2015
(3) TAC 1 (SC)

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 217 LawSuit (SC) 1093

3.
Smt.Sarla
Verma
Vs
Delhi
Transport
Corporation ,2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)

4. Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & anr. Vs Shyam
Kishore Murmu & anr. ,2021 (4) TAC (SC)

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

6. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2007(2) GLH 291
7. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.,
Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the
claimants-appellants
against
the
judgment and order dated 31.03.2010
passed
by
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Chairman, District Judge, Etah
(hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal') in
M.A.C.P. No. 259 of 2009 (Smt. Kamla
and Others Vs. Shri Gurdeep Singh Kakreja
and
Another),
whereby
the
learned
Tribunal
has
awarded
a
sum
of
Rs.2,24,500/- as compensation to the
claimants with interest at the rate of 6%
simple interest per annum .

2. The claimants-appellants have
preferred this appeal for enhancement of
quantum.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
claimants-appellants
filed
a
Motor
Accident
Claim
Petition
before
the
Tribunal for claiming the compensation
under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the
death of Satyavir @ Satvir in a road
accident with the averments that on
20.05.2009 deceased was going with his
brother in tractor bearing No.U.P. 21-B
8515 with Trauli filled up with sand, on
National Highway-24. At about 2:30 AM
(night) when the tractor reached near
Akhhar Dham Temple, a truck bearing No.
H.R. 12 A 1425 came from behind, which
was driven very rashly and negligently by
its driver and hit the tractor from behind. In
this accident, the deceased fell from the
tractor and the wheel of the truck ran over
2 All. Smt. Kamla & Ors. Vs. Shri Gurdeep Singh Kukreja & Anr.
359
him due to which he sustained fatal injuries
and died on the spot. Respondents filed
their respective written statements.

4. Aggrieved mainly with the
compensation
awarded,
the
appellants
preferred this appeal.

5. Heard Mr. S.C.Kesarwani, learned
counsel for the appellants and Dharmendra
Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Perused the record.

6. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence has attained finality and
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short
''Insurance Company") has not challenged
the liability imposed on it by the Tribunal.
The only issued to be decided is the
quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants has submitted that the deceased
was 21 years of age at the time of accident
and was unmarried. It is also submitted that
monthly income of the deceased was
Rs.15,000/- because he was a labourer but
the Tribunal has assessed his income only
Rs.2,500/- per moth, which is on the lower
side. It is next submitted that the Tribunal
has not awarded any sum towards future
loss of income.

8. It is argued by learned counsel for
the appellants that the Tribunal has applied
multiplier of 11 on the basis of the age of
the mother of the deceased while the
multiplier
should
have
been
applied
according to the age of the deceased as held
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Munna Lal Jain vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma
[2015 (3) TAC 1 (SC). It is also argued that
under the non pecuniary damages no
amount is awarded for filial consortium and
the rate of interest is awarded only 6% per
annum and that too simple imprisonment,
which is not just and proper.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has submitted that
there is no evidence is on record regarding
the income of the deceased, hence
assessment of monthly income of the
deceased by Tribunal as per the settled
principles of law. It is further submitted by
Insurance Company that Tribunal has
deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses of
the deceased while 1⁄2 should have been
deducted as per the direction of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain (Supra).
The rate of interest awarded is also just and
proper, hence, there is no infirmity or
illegality in the impugned judgment and
order passed by Tribunal which may call
for any interference by this court.

10. This fact is not disputed that the
deceased was 21 years of age and
unmarried boy at the time of accident.
Learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly
income Rs.2,500/- but keeping in view the
fact that deceased was labourer and his
daily income may be safely assumed as
Rs.100/-, hence, we held that the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- which
amounts to 3,000 X 12 = Rs.36,000/- per
annum.

11. Learned Tribunal has not awarded
any amount towards future loss of income
of the deceased. The judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, 217 LawSuit (SC) 1093 is
applicable retrospectively, hence, as per the
aforesaid judgment, keeping in view the
age of the deceased, 40% shall be added to
the income of the deceased for future
prospects. Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the income towards personal expenses of
the deceased. As per the direction of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain
(Supra), 1⁄2 shall be deducted towards his
personal expenses because the deceased
was unmarried boy.

12. In this vary judgment Munna Lal
Jain (Supra), it is also held by Hon'ble
Apex Court that multiplier shall be applied
according to the age of the deceased.
Learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of
11 but we held that as per the judgment of
Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation [2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)
multiplier of 18 shall be applied as per the
age of the deceased. Appellant no.1 shall
also get Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate,
Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. Apart from
it, the appellant no.1 shall also be entitled to
get Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium in
the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias
Kurvan Ali and another vs. Shyam Kishore
Murmu and another [2021 (4) TAC (SC)] .

13. Hence, the total compensation, in
view of the above discussions, payable to
the appellants no.1 is being computed
herein below:

(i) Annual Income : (Rs3,000 X 12) =
Rs.36,000/- Per annum

(ii)
Percentage
towards
future
prospects 40% : Rs. 14,400/-

(iii) Total income : Rs. 36,000/- +
Rs.14,400/- = Rs. 50,400/-

(iv) Income after deduction 1⁄2 :
Rs.25,200/-

(v) Multiplier applicable : 18

(vi) Loss of Dependency : Rs. 25,200/-
X 18 = Rs.4,53,600/-

(vii) Filial consortium : Rs.40,000/-

(viii) Amount under non pecuniary
head : Rs.30,000/-

(ix) Total compensation : Rs.4,53,600
+ 40,000 + 30,000 = Rs.5,23,600/-

14. 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."

15. Learned Tribunal has awarded
rate of interest as 7% per annum but we are
fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the
light of the above judgment.

16. Perusal of impugned judgment
and award shows that the claim petition
was filed by claimant-appellant no.1, who
is mother of the deceased along with
claimant-appellant nos.2 to 5, who are
brothers of the deceased. Learned Tribunal
has committed gross error as it has directed
that claimant-appellant nos.2 to 5 shall be
entitled to Rs.15,000/- each out of the total
amount of compensation, while there are
not legal representatives of the deceased
because mother of the deceased is alive and
petitioner no.1 in the claim petition.
According to the Hindu Succession Act,
2 All. Smt. Manju Singh @ Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors.
361
mother is Class-I heir while brothers are
Class-II heirs, hence, claimants-appellants
no.2 to 5 shall not be entitled to receive any
amount of compensation and the entire
amount shall be paid to appellant no.1 i.e.
Smt. Kamla (mother of the deceased). If
appellant nos. 2 to 5 have already received
any amount of compensation, it shall be
recovered from them and paid to the
appellant no.1-Smt. Kamla.

17. 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 08 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.

18. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
[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 claimants 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.
----------
(2022)02ILR A361
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 2737 of 2014
Connected with
First Appeal From Order No. 2795 of 2014

Smt. Manju Singh @ Manju Devi & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rakesh Kumar Porwal, Sri M.M. Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.A. Khan

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011
- Rule 220 (a) (3) - Income Tax Act, 1961
- section 194A (3) (ix) - Tax Deducted at
Source - statutory instrument has to be
allowed to operate unless it is found to be
invalid
-

negligence
-
composite
/contributory neglience - principle of
contributory negligence - A person who
either
contributes
or
author
of
the
accident
would
be
liable
for
his
contribution to the accident having taken
place.(Para - 9,12,16,)

Accident between bus of U.P.S.R.T.C. -
vehicle driven by deceased met with an