# Smt. Kamleshwari Devi & Anr v. Shiv Murti Lal & Anr - **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 669 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2022-03-08 - **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No.356 of 1992 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kamleshwari-devi-anr-v-shiv-murti-lal-anr-48571 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 168 - Motor Accident claim - deceased, a bachelor, was a securityguard - deceased was survived by mother and younger brother - He is deposed to be earning Rs. 800 per month - Held - Income Rs. 800 per month - deceased was in the age bracket of 36 - 40 years, 40% will have to be added towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.320 - Total income : Rs. 800 + 320 = Rs. 1,120 - deceased was a bachelor and, therefore, deduction of 1/2, Income after deduction of 1/2 : Rs. 560 - Annual income : Rs. 560 x 12 = Rs.6,720 - Multiplier applicable : 15 - Loss of dependency: Rs.6,720 x 15 = Rs. 1,00,800 - Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.40,000 - Amount under medical 670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES expenses : Rs. 3,000 - Total compensation : Rs. 1,43,800 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited Allowed. (E-5) ## Text 5 All. Smt. Kamleshwari Devi & Anr. Vs. Shiv Murti Lal & Anr. 669 Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of investment be passed by Tribunal.. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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 long time has elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R. ---------- (2022)05ILR A669 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.03.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. First Appeal From Order No.356 of 1992 Smt. Kamleshwari Devi & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Shiv Murti Lal & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri V.C. Srivastava, Ms. Anubha Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.K. Shukla, Sri Arvind Kumar Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 168 - Motor Accident claim - deceased, a bachelor, was a securityguard - deceased was survived by mother and younger brother - He is deposed to be earning Rs. 800 per month - Held - Income Rs. 800 per month - deceased was in the age bracket of 36 - 40 years, 40% will have to be added towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.320 - Total income : Rs. 800 + 320 = Rs. 1,120 - deceased was a bachelor and, therefore, deduction of 1/2, Income after deduction of 1/2 : Rs. 560 - Annual income : Rs. 560 x 12 = Rs.6,720 - Multiplier applicable : 15 - Loss of dependency: Rs.6,720 x 15 = Rs. 1,00,800 - Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.40,000 - Amount under medical 670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES expenses : Rs. 3,000 - Total compensation : Rs. 1,43,800 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited Allowed. (E-5) (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent. None appears for Insurance company though 30 years have elapsed since sending notice. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 18.12.1991 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IX Addl. District Judge, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 174 of 1987 awarding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% as compensation. Thirty years have passed by when mother and younger brother lost the sole bread winner. 3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. The deceased was a security-guard. The deceased was survived by mother and younger brother. He is deposed to be earning Rs.800/- per month. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.800/- per month in the year 1987 and granted multiplier of 5 only and did not add any amount under the head of future loss of income and for medical expenses has granted Rs. 3,000/- and Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents states that the award does not require any interference as the law as propounded under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, did not specify any amount to be paid under the head of future loss of income nor the U.P. Rules specify the same. The deceased was a bachelor and, therefore, deduction of 1⁄2 is just and proper. The multiplier of 5 in those days was considered as just and proper. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court comes to the conclusion that the income of Rs. 800/- granted by the Tribunal is just and proper, to which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 36 - 40 years, 40% will have to be added and multiplier of 15 would apply. Hence, the 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.800/- per month ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.320/- iii. Total income : Rs. 800 + 320 = Rs. 1,120/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 : Rs. 560/- v. Annual income : Rs.560 x 12 = Rs.6,720/- vi. Multiplier applicable : 15 5 All. M/S Shriram Investment Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Smt. Sukhdevi 671 vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.6,720 x 15 = Rs. 1,00,800/- viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.40,000/- ix. Amount under medical expenses : Rs. 3,000/- x. Total compensation : Rs. 1,43,800/- 7. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 8. 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 respondentInsurance Company shall deposit the amount with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 9. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. 10. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter is disposed of. ---------- (2022)05ILR A671 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. First Appeal From Order No. 463 of 1998 M/S Shriram Investment Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Smt. Sukhdevi ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: Sri V.M. Zaidi Counsel for the Respondent: Civil Law - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30 - incident occurred on 28.5.1994, the amount of E.S.I. contribution has been deducted even during this period is a finding of fact - Commissioner rightly not accepted the submissions of appellant-owner - family had given notice to which also there was no rebuttal by the employer that the deceased was not in service - On the contrary, the record shows that he was getting Rs.1000/- per month - judgment dated 16.3.1998 cannot be found fault with - question of law framed are in fact the question of facts Dismissed. (E-5) List of Cases cited: 1. Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs Divisional Manager & anr., 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) 2. North East Karnataka Road Transport Corp. Vs Smt. Sujatha decided Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 decided on 2.11.2018 3. E.S.I.C. Vs S. Prasad F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 decided on 26.10.2017 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) 1. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate and perused the judgment and order impugned. 2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 16.3.1998 passed by Workmen