# Smt. Maya Devi & Ors v. U.O.I

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 717
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-02
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1043 of 1992
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-maya-devi-ors-v-u-o-i-48579
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim - claim
petition dismissed - Tribunal rejected the
claim petition holding that it was not
proved that the accident occurred with the
military
jeep
in
question
-
F.I.R.
categorically mentions about the truck -
Tribunal disbelieved PW1 and PW2 only on
the ground that there was a delay in filing
the F.I.R. - Held - driver of the truck
nowhere stated that the vehicle was not
involved in the accident - Filing of final
report is not a conclusive proof - Just
because final report was filed & protest
petition was not filed, it does not mean
that the vehicle was not involved in the
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accident - Tribunal believed that the death
of the deceased was due to accidental
injuries and, therefore, dismissing the
claim petition is bad in the eye of law -
injuries on deceased suggests that the
truck driver on the bridge was driving the
vehicle rashly and negligently (Para 11,
18)
B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim - claim
petition dismissed by Tribunal - Remand
to Tribunal when not required - If the
matter has remained pending for long
decade before Appellate court & if the
record is with the appellate Court, it can
decide compensation instead of relegating
the parties to the Tribunal (Para 19)
C. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Quantum
of
Compensation
- accident
occurred on 12.03.1987 causing death of
deceased who was 28 years of age and
left behind him, widow and four minor
children - deceased was milk vendor -
Deceased Income Rs. 900/- p.m. i.e.
below taxable income in the year 1987 -
deceased was in age bracket of 26-30
years as Milk worker, 40% of the income
will have to be added as future prospects -
Income Rs.900 p.m - Percentage towards
future prospects : 40% namely Rs.360 -
Total income : Rs.900 + Rs.360= Rs.1260
- Income after deduction of 1/4 : Rs.945 -
Annual income : Rs.945 x 12 = Rs.11,340 -
Multiplier applicable : 17 (as the deceased
was in the age bracket of 26- 30 years) -
Loss of dependency: Rs.11,340 x 17 =
Rs.1,92,780
-
Amount
under
non
pecuniary
heads
=
50,000
-
Total
compensation : Rs.2,42,780 - -Insurance
Company shall directed to deposit the
amount along with additional amount
within a period of 12 weeks with interest
at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing
of the claim petition till the amount is 9 of
10 deposited (Para 22, 27)
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Smt. Maya Devi & Ors. Vs. U.O.I.
717
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 be passed by Tribunal..

23. 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.

24.

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.

25. 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
20 years have elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.
----------
(2022)05ILR A717
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1043 of 1992

Smt. Maya Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.O.I. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ramesh Singh, Sri K.L. Grover

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri C.S. Chaturvedi

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim - claim
petition dismissed - Tribunal rejected the
claim petition holding that it was not
proved that the accident occurred with the
military
jeep
in
question
-
F.I.R.
categorically mentions about the truck -
Tribunal disbelieved PW1 and PW2 only on
the ground that there was a delay in filing
the F.I.R. - Held - driver of the truck
nowhere stated that the vehicle was not
involved in the accident - Filing of final
report is not a conclusive proof - Just
because final report was filed & protest
petition was not filed, it does not mean
that the vehicle was not involved in the
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accident - Tribunal believed that the death
of the deceased was due to accidental
injuries and, therefore, dismissing the
claim petition is bad in the eye of law -
injuries on deceased suggests that the
truck driver on the bridge was driving the
vehicle rashly and negligently (Para 11,
18)
B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim - claim
petition dismissed by Tribunal - Remand
to Tribunal when not required - If the
matter has remained pending for long
decade before Appellate court & if the
record is with the appellate Court, it can
decide compensation instead of relegating
the parties to the Tribunal (Para 19)
C. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Quantum
of
Compensation
- accident
occurred on 12.03.1987 causing death of
deceased who was 28 years of age and
left behind him, widow and four minor
children - deceased was milk vendor -
Deceased Income Rs. 900/- p.m. i.e.
below taxable income in the year 1987 -
deceased was in age bracket of 26-30
years as Milk worker, 40% of the income
will have to be added as future prospects -
Income Rs.900 p.m - Percentage towards
future prospects : 40% namely Rs.360 -
Total income : Rs.900 + Rs.360= Rs.1260
- Income after deduction of 1/4 : Rs.945 -
Annual income : Rs.945 x 12 = Rs.11,340 -
Multiplier applicable : 17 (as the deceased
was in the age bracket of 26- 30 years) -
Loss of dependency: Rs.11,340 x 17 =
Rs.1,92,780
-
Amount
under
non
pecuniary
heads
=
50,000
-
Total
compensation : Rs.2,42,780 - -Insurance
Company shall directed to deposit the
amount along with additional amount
within a period of 12 weeks with interest
at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing
of the claim petition till the amount is 9 of
10 deposited (Para 22, 27)
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:
1. Varinderjit Singh Vs Tajinder Singh & ors.,
2008 (4) TAC 250 Punjab & Haryana

2. Devi Prasad Vs Zahur Khan, 2001 (2) TAC
419 Madhya Pradesh

3. Bhanwar Lal Verma Vs Sharad Dholiya, 2007
ACJ 52

4. Vimla Devi & ors. Vs National Insurance Co.
Ltd. & anr., (2019) 2 SCC 186

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

6. Rylands Vs Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330

7. Jacob Mathew Vs St. of Pun., 2005 ACJ (SC)
1840

8. Bithika Mazumdar & anr. Vs Sagar Pal & ors.,
(2017) 2 SCC 748

9. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Ummida
Begum & ors. F.A.F.O. No. 1999 of 2007

10. Smt. Ragini Devi & ors. Vs United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. F.A.F.O. No. 1404 of
1999 decided on 17.4.2019

11. Vimal Kanwar & ors. & ors.Vs Kishore Dan &
ors., AIR 2013 SC 3830

12. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi
& ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050

13. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation,
(2009) 6 SCC 121

14. Smt. Hansagauri P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291

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

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

1. Heard Shri Ramesh Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants; Shri C.S.
5 All. Smt. Maya Devi & Ors. Vs. U.O.I.
719
Chaturvedi,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents; and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment dated
18.3.1992 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/XIth Additional District
Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.150 of 1987 rejecting the same
and not awarding any compensation.

3. The brief facts as culled out from
the record are that the deceased met with an
accident on 12.3.1987 at about 09.40 hrs.
The informant alongwith the deceased was
going towards the Agra City, i.e., Agra Fort
and the alleged Jeep and the Scooter were
coming fro m the Agra City, i.e., Agra Fort.
On notice being issued, the Insurance
company appeared and filed their reply.
The driver and owner accepted the accident
having taken place but contended that the
accident occurred due to negligence of the
deceased herein.

4. Learned Counsel Sri Ramesh Singh
has contended that the petition has been
dismissed by assigning reasons which are
not germane for the facts.

5. The Tribunal framed 3 issues and
rejected the claim petition holding that it
was not proved that the accident occurred
with the military jeep in question. The
Tribunal
disbelieved
PW-1,
who
is
claimant and eye witness. The F.I.R.
categorically mentions about the truck. Just
because the final report was filed will not
conclusively prove that the vehicle was not
involved. The Tribunal on surmises and
conjectures disbelieved PW1 and PW2 only
on the ground that there was a delay in
filing the F.I.R. The written statement of
the owner ought to have been looked into
by the Tribunal before brushing aside the
judgment
and
not
relying
on
the
authoritative
pronouncements
in
Varinderjit Singh Vs. Tajinder Singh &
others, 2008 (4) TAC 250 Punjab and
Haryana, Devi Prasad Vs. Zahur Khan,
2001 (2) TAC 419 Madhya Pradesh, and
Bhanwar Lal Verma Vs. Sharad Dholiya,
2007 ACJ 52.

6. It is further submitted that the
appellant has challenged impugned award
and decision dated 18.3.1992 on the
following amongst grounds:

(i) The order passed by the
Tribunal is illegal, perverse and against the
evidence
on
record
and
based
on
conjectures and surmises and, as such, the
same is liable to be quashed.

(ii) It is fully proved by the
evidence on record that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the vehicle No.25879-B, 17947 PCL
(Military Jeep), the learned tribunal erred in
holding otherwise.

(iii) It is apparent fro the First
Information Report and the evidence of
PW-1 that the informant alongwith the
deceased was going towards the Agra City
i.e. Agra Fort and the alleged Jeep and the
Scooter were coming from the Agra City
i.e. Agra Fort, the tribunal erred in
interpreting the words used in First
Information Report.

(iv) The Learned Tribunal has
suo moto added the word "se" in a sentence
written in First Information Report i.e.
"jaise hi hum log Agra Fort ki taraf se
chalte huye satsang Ashram..............."
while the word "se" is not used in the said
sentence in the manner interpreted by the
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tribunal written in the First Information
Report and, as such, the learned Tribunal
erred by misreading the First Information
Report by adding himself the word "se" and
by returning adverse finding as far as
negligence and involvement is concerned.

(v)
The
Tribunal
erred
by
misreading the testimony of scooter driver
Akhlak Hussain i.e. "wah scooter se kile ke
taraf purani mandi taj ganj ja raha tha",
while the Akhlak Hussaini Scooter Driver
has said in his evidence that "main apne
scooter se Agra kila se purani mandi
Tajganj ja raha tha".

(vi) The photographs-Exhibits
No.3 to 6, fully prove that the Military Jeep
(No.25879-B-1794 PCL) was involved in
the accident, the learned Tribunal erred in
holding otherwise and wrongly rejected the
claimants claim petition.

(vii) The learned Tribunal erred
in
returning
the
finding
about
non
involvement of vehicle which is not
supported by the evidence on record.

7. The evidence of the witnesses has
not been accepted which is also against the
judgment in the case of the Apex Court in
Vimla Devi and others Vs. National
Insurance
Company
Limited
and
another, (2019) 2 SCC 186 and therefore
this court are obliged to hold that the
deceased died due to the accidental injuries.
The judgment of the Apex Court in Anita
Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(2021), 1 SCC 171 would also apply to the
fact of this case.

8. Once the owner admits before the
tribunal that the vehicle was involved (2)
the final report was filed would not
conclusively prove that the vehicle is not
involved (3) insurance company has not
proved that the vehicle was not involved
and it is a fake claim the tribunal could not
dispose of the claim when it was not
proved by the insurance company that the
claimants and owner and driver were in
collusion, this is the main issue involved in
this appeal.

9. It is submitted by Sri C.S.
Chaturvedi for insurance company that the
petition was rightly dismissed as the F.I.R.
culminated into a report and there was no
objection raised to that. The owner has
colluded with the petitioners and, therefore,
also there is no reason to not concur with
the Tribunal.

10. The Insurance company did not
examine in person nor was the owner of the
vehicle, which is alleged to be involved in
the accident, put to any cross-examination
as he did not appear before the Tribunal nor
did the Insurance company examine him as
its witness after the filed written statement.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition
holding that it was not proved by cogent
evidence that the accident occurred with
the vehicle in question and that the
evidence on record conclusively proves that
the vehicle was involved in the accident.

11. The findings of the Tribunal that
the vehicle was not involved in the accident
is perverse on record and against the tenet
of evidence and deserves to be reversed.
The finding of fact that the truck was not
involved in the accident is absurd. The
driver of the truck has nowhere stated that
the vehicle was not involved in the
accident. Filing of final report is not a
conclusive proof in view of the judgment of
Varinderjit Singh Vs. Tajinder Singh &
others, 2008 (4) TAC 250 Punjab and
Haryana. The involvement is proved by
5 All. Smt. Maya Devi & Ors. Vs. U.O.I.
721
cogent evidence nor these facts are brought
on record. Just because protest petition was
not filed, it does not mean that the vehicle
was not involved in the accident. It cannot
be said that the vehicle was not involved.
The Tribunal believes that the death of the
deceased was due to accidental injuries
and, therefore, dismissing the claim petition
is bad in the eye of law. Therefore, it
cannot be said that it was a planted vehicle.

12. As far as issue of contributory
negligence is concerned as alleged by the
appellant, this Court will have to consider
the principles for deciding the negligence.
Negligence means failure to exercise
required degree of care and caution
expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is
the omission to do something which a
reasonable
man,
guided
upon
the
considerations, which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is not always a question of direct evidence.
It is an inference to be drawn from proved
facts. Negligence is not an absolute term,
but is a relative one. It is rather a
comparative term. What may be negligence
in one case may not be so in another.
Where there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no legal
consequence. Where there is a duty to
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen likely to
caused physical injury to person. The
degree of care required, of course, depends
upon facts in each case. On these broad
principles, the negligence of drivers is
required to be assessed.

13. It would be seen that burden of
proof for contributory negligence on the
part of deceased has to be discharged by
the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident. It
is well settled law that at intersection where
two roads cross each other, it is the duty of
a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if
driver did not slow down at intersection,
but continued to proceed at a high speed
without caring to notice that another
vehicle was crossing, then the conduct of
driver necessarily leads to conclusion that
vehicle was being driven by him rashly as
well as negligently.

14. 10th Schedule appended to Motor
Vehicle Act contain statutory regulations
for driving of motor vehicles which also
form part of every Driving License. Clause6 of such Regulation clearly directs that the
driver of every motor vehicle to slow down
vehicle at every intersection or junction of
roads or at a turning of the road. It is also
provided that driver of the vehicle should
not enter intersection or junction of roads
unless he makes sure that he would not
thereby endanger any other person. Merely,
because driver of the Truck was driving
vehicle on the left side of road would not
absolve him from his responsibility to slow
down
vehicle
as
he
approaches
intersection of roads, particularly when he
could have easily seen, that the car over
which
deceased
was
riding,
was
approaching intersection.

15. In view of the fast and constantly
increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles
upon roads may be regarded to some extent
as coming within the principle of liability
defined in Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3
HL (LR) 330. From the point of view of
pedestrian, the roads of this country have
been rendered by the use of motor vehicles,
highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where
drivers of motor vehicles who have caused
accidents, are unknown. In fact such cases
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
are increasing in number. Where a
pedestrian without negligence on his part is
injured or killed by a motorist, whether
negligently or not, he or his legal
representatives, as the case may be, should
be entitled to recover damages if principle
of social justice should have any meaning
at all.

16. These provisions (sec.110A and
sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not
merely
procedural
provisions.
They
substantively affect the rights of the parties.
The right of action created by Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its
species, new in its quality, new in its
principles. In every way it was new. The
right given to legal representatives under
Act, 1988 to file an application for
compensation for death due to a motor
vehicle accident is an enlarged one. This
right cannot be hedged in by limitations of
an action under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
New situations and new dangers require
new strategies and new remedies.

17. In Jacob Mathew V/s. State of
Punjab, 2005 ACJ (SC) 1840), by the
above process, the burden of proof may
ordinarily be cast on the defendants in a
motor accident claim petition to prove that
motor vehicle was being driven with
reasonable care or that there is equal
negligence on the part of driver of another
vehicle.

18. This Court cannot concur with the
learned Tribunal that it was not proved that
the truck driver had not driven the truck
rashly and negligently. The injuries on
deceased suggests that the truck driver on
the bridge was driving the vehicle rashly
and negligently. Hence, the said issue is
answered in the positive and in favour of
the appellant. The appreciation of evidence
as held by the Apex Court in the case of
Kusum Lata, Saroj and Vimla Devi (supra)
will not permit this court to concur with the
learned Tribunal.

19. The next issue which arises is that
the matter has remained pending for long
decade, the record and proceedings are
before this Court and the matter whether be
remanded to the Tribunal or decided here?
The answer is in the affirmative as per the
judgments of the Apex Court in Bithika
Mazumdar and another Vs. Sagar Pal
and others, (2017) 2 SCC 748 and of this
Court in F.A.F.O. No. 1999 of 2007
(Oriental Insurance Company Limited
vs. Smt. Ummida Begum and others) and
in F.A.F.O. No. 1404 of 1999 (Smt.
Ragini Devi and others Vs. United India
Insurance
Company
Limited
and
another) decided on 17.4.2019 where in it
has been held that if the record is with the
appellate Court, it can decide compensation
instead of relegating the parties to the
Tribunal.

Compensation

20. Having heard learned counsels for
the parties and considered the factual data,
this Court finds that the accident occurred
on 12.03.1987 causing death of Thakur Das
who was 28 years of age and left behind
him, widow and four minor children. The
deceased was milk vendor. The Tribunal
has not granted any amount. The evidence
of the witnesses has not been accepted
which is also against the Judgment in the
case of the Apex Court in Vimla Devi and
others Vs. National Insurance Company
Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186,
and, therefore, we are obliged to hold that
the deceased died due to the accidental
injuries. The judgment of the Apex Court
in Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance
5 All. Smt. Maya Devi & Ors. Vs. U.O.I.
723
Co. Ltd. (2021), 1 SCC 171 would also
apply to the facts of this case.

21. As far as beneficial piece of
legislation is concerned, the strict rules of
Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act are
no required to adhered to.

22. In view of the judgment of
Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore
Dan and others, AIR 2013 SC 3830
except income Tax no amount could have
been deducted by the tribunal in the year
of question, i.e., 1987, his income was
below taxable income and hence we will
have to consider the income at Rs.900/-
per month of the deceased. The deceased
was in age bracket of 26-30 years as Milk
worker, 40% of the income will have to
be added as future prospects in view of
the decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050.

18. In this backdrop this Court
evaluates the compensation in view of the
judgment
of
National
Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and
Sarla
Verma
Vs.
Delhi
Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, the
recalculation of compensation would be as
follows:

i. Income Rs.900/- p.m.

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.360/-

iii. Total income : Rs.900 +
Rs.360= Rs.1260/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/4
: Rs.945/-

v. Annual income : Rs.945 x 12 =
Rs.11,340/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 17 (as
the deceased was in the age bracket of 2630 years)

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.11,340 x 17 = Rs.1,92,780/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads = 50,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.2,42,780/-

23. 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 6 (SC), 442, the order of
investment is not passed because applicants
/claimants are neither illiterate or rustic
villagers.

24. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagauri 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
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 not blindly apply the judgment
of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be
applied looking to the facts of each case.

26. 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 7 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."

27. In view of the above, the appeal is
allowed. Judgment and decree passed by
the Tribunal shall stand modified to the
aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance
Company shall deposit the amount along
with additional 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.

28. We are thankful to learned
counsels for the parties for ably assisted the
Court.

29. Record be sent back to court
below forthwith, if any.

30. We are thankful to learned
counsels for parties for ably assisting the
Court.
----------
(2022)05ILR A724
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1083 of 2016

Smt. Shaily @ Sarla & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Parmeshwari Dayal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Nomman Rajvanshi, Sri Archit Mehrotra,
Sri Naman Rajvanshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Krishna Shanker Chaudhary