# Smt. Kavita Verma & Ors v. Jogendra Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 639
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-06
- **Case number:** First Appeal from order No. 3087 of 2011
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kavita-verma-ors-v-jogendra-singh-ors-48282
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Torts Law - Motor vehicle Act,1988 -
Section 163-A,166,173 - compensation for
death - rate of interest - income tax
returns should be considered as proof of
income. (Para -8,10)

(B) Tax Law - The 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
exceeds
Rs.50,000/-
-
insurance company/owner is/are entitled
to deduct appropriate amount under the
head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' - if the
amount of interest does not exceeds
Rs.50,000/- in any financial year - registry
of Tribunal is directed to allow the
claimants
to
withdraw
the
amount
without producing the certificate from the
concerned Income-Tax Authority. (Para -
16)

Accident caused death of three people -
deceased
(Prashant
Verma),
his
younger
brother (Sandeep Verma) and mother (Smt.
Vimlesh) succumbed to the injuries on the spot -
same accident - three different awards - rate of
interest 7% - dissatisfied with compensation
awarded by Tribunal - hence three appeals.

HELD:-Total
compensation
payable
Rs.7,08,550/- for (DECEASED SMT. VIMLESH
VERMA); Rs.14,98,000/- for (DECEASED
SANDEEP
VERMA)
;
Rs.25,95,000/-
for
(DECEASED
PRASHANT
VERMA).The
respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit
the amount with interest at the rate of 7.5%
from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the amount is deposited. Amount already
deposited be deducted from the amount to be
deposited. (Para -15)

Appeals partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

4 All. Smt. Kavita Verma & Ors. Vs. Jogendra Singh & Ors.
639
counsels for the parties for ably assisted the
Court.
----------
(2022)04ILR A639
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal from order No. 3087 of 2011
With F.A.F.O.Nos. 3086 of 2011 and 3085 of
2011

Smt. Kavita Verma & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Jogendra Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, Sri M.K. Maurya

(A) Torts Law - Motor vehicle Act,1988 -
Section 163-A,166,173 - compensation for
death - rate of interest - income tax
returns should be considered as proof of
income. (Para -8,10)

(B) Tax Law - The 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
exceeds
Rs.50,000/-
-
insurance company/owner is/are entitled
to deduct appropriate amount under the
head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' - if the
amount of interest does not exceeds
Rs.50,000/- in any financial year - registry
of Tribunal is directed to allow the
claimants
to
withdraw
the
amount
without producing the certificate from the
concerned Income-Tax Authority. (Para -
16)

Accident caused death of three people -
deceased
(Prashant
Verma),
his
younger
brother (Sandeep Verma) and mother (Smt.
Vimlesh) succumbed to the injuries on the spot -
same accident - three different awards - rate of
interest 7% - dissatisfied with compensation
awarded by Tribunal - hence three appeals.

HELD:-Total
compensation
payable
Rs.7,08,550/- for (DECEASED SMT. VIMLESH
VERMA); Rs.14,98,000/- for (DECEASED
SANDEEP
VERMA)
;
Rs.25,95,000/-
for
(DECEASED
PRASHANT
VERMA).The
respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit
the amount with interest at the rate of 7.5%
from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the amount is deposited. Amount already
deposited be deducted from the amount to be
deposited. (Para -15)

Appeals partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Smt. Anamika Bhardwaj & ors. Vs Ashok
Gulati & ors. , F.A.F.O. No. 3251 of 2010

2. Malarvizhi & ors. Vs United India Insurance
Company Limited & anr. , AIR (2020) SC 90

3. Sunita & ors. Vs Raj. State Road Transport
Corporation & anr. ,2019 (SC) 994

4. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr., 2009 Lawsuit (SC) 613

5. Lata Wadhwa & ors. , AIR 2001 SC 3218

6. Anita Sharma Vs New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. ,(2021) 1 SCC 171

7. Vimla Devi & ors. Vs National Insurance
Company Ltd. & anr., (2019) 2 SCC 18

8. Puttum & ors. Vs K.N. Narayan Reddy ,AIR
2014 (SC) 706

9. Munna Lal Jain & anr. Vs Vipin Kumar
Sharma & ors. , (2015) 6 SCC 347

10. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi
& ors., 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
11. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat
Johal & ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)

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

13. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.,
F.A.F.O. No. 23 of 2001

14. Tej Kumari Sharma Vs Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Insurance Co. Ltd., F.A.F.O. No. 2871 of
2016

15. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Private Ltd. Vs Union of India & ors.

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

1. Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the appellants and Shri
Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the
respondents. None appears for the owner.

2. These three appeals are preferred
by the appellants who were the original
claimants being dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The appeal No. 3087 of 2011 arises out of
Claim Petition No. 88 of 2010 which was
instituted for the death of Prashant Verma.
The F.A.F.O. No. 3086 of 2011 arises out
of Claim Petition No. 89 of 2010 decided
on 14.04.2011 which was filed for death of
Sandeep Verma who died in motor accident
and F.A.F.O. No. 3085 of 2011 arises out
of the Claim Petition being No. 90 of 2010
seeking compensation for the death of Smt.
Vimlesh Verma. All the three appeals arise
out of three different awards but the
accident arose out of the same accident,
hence we decide these appeals together.

3. The facts as revealed go to show
that on the fateful day when the vehicle in
which the deceased were travelling, at
about 2.30 p.m. when their vehicle reached
near village Deval a tanker bearing
registration no. HR 45-A-4558 which was
being driven rashly and negligently by its
driver, dashed against the Santro Car in
which the deceased were travelling by
coming from the opposite direction and
wrong side and caused the accident. The
accident caused death of three people
namely deceased Prashant Verma, his
younger brother Sandeep Verma and
mother Smt. Vimlesh succumbed to the
injuries on the spot.

4. At the time of accident deceased
Prashant Verma was hale and hearty young
man of 30 years and used to carry on
bullion business and used to earn Rs.
2,00,000/- per annum. He was also an
income tax payee and used to file his
income tax returns which are on record for
the year of accident and prior there to. The
claimants who are widow two years son
and one months daughter claimed Rs.
82,25,000/- as compensation. Sandeep
Verma the younger brother was unmarried
and was engaged in his business of
coaching institute and was also preparing
for his I.A.S. examination, his income tax
return showed that his income was Rs.
1,60,000/- per annum but strange enough
the Tribunal considered the income to be
Rs. 15,000/- per annum and deducted 1/2
granted multiplier of 5 as per the age of the
father and granted Rs. 4,500/- for non
pecuniary damages. This computation is
under challenge as according to the counsel
for appellant the income tax returns have
been ignored and the judgment of Apex
Court in Srala Verma (intra) directing to
grant compensation as per the age of the
deceased has also been ignored, which
requires re computation. The third petition
is by the husband for the death of his wife
whose income has been considered to be
Rs. 2,000/- per month and has deducted 1/3
4 All. Smt. Kavita Verma & Ors. Vs. Jogendra Singh & Ors.
641
amount for personal expenses and granted
multiplier of 5 which is also against the
decision of Apex Court and granted meagre
amount towards non pecuniary damages.
According to the counsel for the appellants
the compensation and rate of interest
requires to be re evaluated.

5. The parties are referred to as
appellant/appellants/claimants
and
respondent/Insurance Company.

6. The appeals raise sole issue of
compensation
to
be
granted
to
the
appellant/appellants for death, by this
Court. The accident herein having taken
place on 08.01.2010 whereby three persons
died on the spot is not in dispute. The
vehicle being insured with the respondent
is not in dispute. The driver of the
offending vehicle has been held to be
negligent is not in dispute. The tanker
driver has been held to be rash and
negligent in causing the accident is also not
in dispute. The Insurance Company has not
challenge the findings by the Tribunal and
the findings as to their liability have
attained finality.

7. None of the grounds which were
raised so as to avoid the liability have
found favour with the Tribunal.

8. General submissions by the learned
counsel for the appellants the legal heirs of
deceased are that though the income tax
returns have been filed they have been
brushed aside by the Tribunal holding they
are not proved by the Income Tax Officer.
The learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that this finding is perverse and
is against the record. It is submitted that the
respondents have not proved that the said
documents are either fake or not filed
before the department. It is further
submitted that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have
all testified about the income tax returns
being filed just because total income of the
firm has not been produced, the Tribunal
can not hold that the deceased has to be
considered to be earning Rs. 100 or less per
day. In that view of the matter the learned
counsel has submitted that said finding is
against the decision of this Court. This
court in case of Smt. Anamika Bhardwaj
And Others Vs. Ashok Gulati And Others
in F.A.F.O. No. 3251 of 2010 has held that
income tax returns should be considered as
proof of income. We are fortified in our
view by the decision of the Apex Court
titled Malarvizhi & Others Vs. United
India Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
reported in AIR (2020) SC 90. The
judgment in Sunita and Others Vs.
Rajasthan
State
Road
Transport
Corporation and Another 2019 (SC) 994
would enure for the benefit of the
appellant/appellants
herein,
as
strict
trappings of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
cannot be made applicable to proceeding
under such beneficial piece of legislation as
has been done by the Tribunal in accepting
the submission of the counsel for Insurance
Company that the income cannot be fixed
on the basis of income tax return this
reasoning is bad in eye of law.

FAFO
NO.
3085
OF
2011
(DECEASED
SMT.
VIMLESH
VERMA)

9. The F.A.F.O. No. 3085 of 2011
relates to the death of the wife of the
appellant the deceased as per the testimony
of this witness deceased was 52 years of
age at the time of accident. The Tribunal
has considered the income of the deceased
(house wife) to be Rs. 2,000 per month as
the Tribunal held that the income tax return
was not proved and as there were no
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
income tax return filed for the assessment
year prior to the one produced and prior to
death the same could not be relied upon.

10. This court in case of Smt.
Anamika Bhardwaj And Others (Supra)
has held that income tax returns should be
considered as proof of income. The
Tribunal in the year 2011 very strangely
did not fallow the judgment of the Apex
Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another, 2009
Lawsuit (SC) 613 for grant of multiplier.
The Tribunal again relied on the schedule
of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 appended for
guidance for Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act whereas the Claim Petition
was preferred under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The judgment in
Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another, 2009
Lawsuit (SC) 613 categorically mentioned
that the age of the deceased is in the age
bracket of 56 to 60 years multiplier of 9
should be applied, even if we go by the
second schedule the multiplier of 8 would
be admissible and not 5. This entire
computation will have to be reworked the
reason being the Apex Court in decisions
referred herein above has held that income
tax return if has been filed, the same has to
be considered to be a guiding principle for
considering the income of the deceased.
The finding of fact that the said document
has to be thrown in waste paper does not
portray
benefiction
which
a
Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal should show,
while deciding compensation matter which
was a certified copy of order is known as
income tax statement of the deceased. The
learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal
even if did not accept the income tax return
the Tribunal ought to have at least applied
the principle admissible on death of house
wife as enunciated in Lata Wadhwa and
others reported in AIR 2001 SC 3218,
even if there was no documentary evidence
produced. There is no reason assigned as to
why the Tribunal does not accept the oral
testimony of the husband the deceased was
52 years of age and comes to the
conclusion that postmortem report should
be accepted and held are to be 60 years.
May that as it may be the Tribunal has
committed error in not considering the
income tax return or the statement of the
income of the deceased which proved that
the income of the deceased was Rs.
1,49,800/- per annum. In the case of Anita
Sharma Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(2021) 1 SCC 171 and in case of Vimla
Devi and Others Vs. National Insurance
Company Limited and another, (2019) 2
SCC 18 and the fact that way back in
Puttum and Others Vs. K.N. Narayan
Reddy AIR 2014 (SC) 706 the Apex Court
has held that the schedule is unworkable
there are faults in a schedule despite that
the Tribunal relied on the same. The
Tribunal relied on the schedule despite to
the fact that the Tribunal was pointed out
the decision in Sarla Verma (Supra). The
judgment in Vimla Devi (Supra) would
apply to the facts of this case. We are
fortified in our view by the decision of the
Apex Court in Malarvizhi & Others (Supra)
would which ensure for the benefit of the
appellant herein, as strict trappings of Civil
Procedure Court be made applicable.
Hence the income of the deceased has to be
considered Rs. to be Rs. 1,49,000/- per
annum out of which Rs. 20,000/- has to be
deducted by way of income tax we consider
the age of the deceased to be 56 years and
upturn the finding of the Tribunal that the
deceased was 60 years of age when she
passed away. To the income which we have
considered, 10% will have to be added for
future loss of income as the husband is the
sole dependent and she had major children
4 All. Smt. Kavita Verma & Ors. Vs. Jogendra Singh & Ors.
643
who were married, from the said amount
1/2 will have to be deducted and not 1/3 for
personal expenses, the multiplier would be
9 to which looking to the year of the
accident Rs. 70,000/- would be admissible
for non pecuniary damages the interest
would be as decided herein below:-

(i). Annual income after deduction of
income tax= Rs. 1,29,000/-.

(ii). 10% for future loss of income
=Rs. 1,29,000+12,900=1,41,900/-.

(iii). Deduction for personal expenses
1/2 = 1,41,900-70950=70950.

(iv). Multiplier applicable=9

(v).
Loss
of
dependency
Rs.
70,950X9=6,38,550/-.

(vi). Amount under non pecuniary
heads Rs. 70,000/-

(vii).
Total
compensation
Rs.
6,38,550+70,000=7,08,550/-.

FAFO
NO.
3086
OF
2011
(DECEASED SANDEEP VERMA)

11. Sandeep Verma was running
coaching classes and was preparing for his
I.A.S
examination
the
Tribunal
has
considered his income in the year 2010 to
be Rs. 15,000/- per annum based on
schedule as if it was a petition under 163-A
we have assigned reason that the same is
bad in foregoing paragraphs by assigning
reason that though he was income payee,
the income tax return was for the year 2010
and that is also not relied on. The Tribunal
has held that as there is no statement of
income of the previous years, therefore, the
same has not been believed. The Tribunal
has not considered the concept of potential
of the young boy who had cleared his
I.A.S. preliminary exam and also was doing
business, even, if we discard the certificate
of income, his income can be considered to
be Rs. 10,000/- per month to which as he
was self employed 40% will have to be
added which is not added by the Tribunal.
Hence, Rs. 10,000+4,000=Rs. 14,000/- and
the father and mother were dependent upon
him 1/2 can be deducted. The multiplier
granted by the Tribunal was 5 as per
section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act
on the basis of the age of the father which
is not permissible the age of the deceased
will have to be considered even in the year
of the decision namely the judgment on the
basis of decision of Munna Lal Jain And
Another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and
Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347. The
multiplier would be 17 as the deceased was
28 years of age to which Rs. 40,000/- under
the head of non pecuniary damages will
have to be granted to the father with
interest.

(i).
Annual
income
=
Rs.
10,000X12=1,20,000/-.

(ii). Future loss of income @ 40%=Rs.
48,000/-.

(iii).
Total
income
Rs.
1,20,000+48,000=1,68,000.

(iv). Income after deduction of 1/2 for
personal expenses=84,000-.

(iv). Multiplier applicable=17

(v).
Loss
of
dependency
Rs.
84,000X17=14,28,000/-.

(vi). Amount under non pecuniary
heads Rs. 70,000/-

(vii).
Total
compensation
Rs.
14,28,000+70,000=14,98,000/-.

FAFO
NO.
3087
OF
2011
(DECEASED PRASHANT VERMA)

12. Third matter relates to the death
of Prashant Verma who had a jewellery
shop who was an income tax payer whose
income tax return was filed as document
C-15. He was survived by his widow
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aged 28 years, son of 2 years and
daughter of 1 month and his father who
was also dependent upon him. The
Tribunal very strange enough in this
matter also discarded the income tax
returns which was filed and proved by the
widow of the deceased where the total
gross income was shown to be Rs.
1,97,800/- per annum, which can safely
be considered to be Rs. 1,50,000/- per
annum as income tax can be deducted per
annum. The deceased was below the age
of 50, hence 40% will have to be added to
the said income. As he was survived by
his widow and two minor children and
father 1/3 will have to be deducted and
the
multiplier
of
17
granted
is
maintained. The Tribunal could not have
held that his income should be that of a
labourer. The deceased was a B.Sc.
graduate that because documents about
his degree were not filed it cannot be held
that he was a labourer. The oral testimony
of widow and father testified this fact.
The certified copy of income tax return
was already filed. The Tribunal granted
Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.
5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.
2,000/- for loss of estate, the petition is
decided on 14.04.2011 namely after the
judgment in Sarla Verma (Supra). We
would
have
to
recalculate
the
compensation Rs. 50,000/- each to two
minor children as filial consortium who
lost their father at a tender age. A sum of
Rs. 1 Lakh to the widow in addition to
Rs. 59,000/- granted by the Tribunal for
loss of love affection and consortium and
for losing her husband at a young age of
28 with two children to maintain. Rs.
15,000 for funeral expenses as per the
judgment
of
Apex
Court
National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093, under
non pecuniary damages, the father is
adequately compensated in the other two
matters hence in this matter out of total
compensation Rs. 50,000/- be paid to the
father of the deceased.

(i). Annual income = Rs. 1,50,000.

(ii). Future loss of income @ 40%=Rs.
60,000/-.

(iii).
Total
income
Rs.
1,50,000+60,000=2,10,000.

(iv). Income after deduction of 1/3
deduction for personal expenses=Rs.
1,40,000/-.

(iv). Multiplier applicable=17

(v).
Loss
of
dependency
Rs.
1,40,000X17=23,80,000/-.

(vi). Amount under non pecuniary heads
Rs.
50,000+50,000+1,00,000+15,000=2,15,000/-
.

(vii).
Total
compensation
Rs.
23,80,000+2,15,000=25,95,000/-.

13. 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."

14. Learned Tribunal has awarded
rate of interest as 7% per annum but we are
4 All. Raghuraj Singh Vs. Gyan Singh & Ors.
645
fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the
light of the above judgment.

15. In view of the above, these
appeals are 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.

16. 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.

17. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company Private Ltd. Vs 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
10 years have elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.

18. While parting the request to
Registrar General to show our concerned to
the learned Tribunal about the method in
which the matters were decided. We
request the Tribunal in the State to
consolidate the matter given consolidated
the judgment and award in matters there
were more than two claim petitions.

19. We request the Registrar General
to send the copy of this order to the learned
Tribunal so that in future he may more
cautious.
----------
(2022)04ILR A645
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 3381 of 2003

Raghuraj Singh ...Appellants
Versus
Gyan Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Y.S. Bohra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, Sri Arvind Kumar