# Smt. Meenaxi Panwanda & Ors v. Raj Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 460
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-09
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 1897 of 2018
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-meenaxi-panwanda-ors-v-raj-kumar-ors-47431
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 176-challenge to-claim-deceased
who was an Assistant Manager in NTPC
and his income considered Rs. 63,125 per
month-the deceased was survived by his
widow
and
three
daughters-Total
compensation would be Rs. 68,87,500/-
and rate of interest would be 7.5% -the
insurance company shall deposit the
amount within period of 12 weeks. (Para 1
to 13)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
/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. Hansaguti 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. We make it clear that 30% can be
recovered by the Insurance Company from
the owner, driver and Insurance Company
of the motorcycle by the mode suggested
by the Apex Court.

26.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein.

27. This Court is thankful to both the
counsels to see that this very old matter is
disposed of.
----------
(2021)09ILR A460
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2021

BEFORE

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

FAFO No. 1897 of 2018

Smt. Meenaxi Panwanda & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Raj Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shreesh Srivastava, Sri Anubhav Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Smt. Archana Singh, Ms. Manjima Singh,
Sri Ram Lakhan Deobanshi, Sri Arun Kumar
Singh

A. Civil Law -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 176-challenge to-claim-deceased
who was an Assistant Manager in NTPC
and his income considered Rs. 63,125 per
month-the deceased was survived by his
widow
and
three
daughters-Total
compensation would be Rs. 68,87,500/-
and rate of interest would be 7.5% -the
insurance company shall deposit the
amount within period of 12 weeks. (Para 1
to 13)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. New India Assur. Co. Ltd. Vs Urmilla Shukla &
ors. Civil Appeal No. 4634 of 2021

2. Kirti & anr. Vs Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. (2021) 2
SCC 166

3. Anita Sharma & ors. Vs The New India Assr.
Co. Ltd. & anr. (2021) 1 SCC 171
9 All. Smt. Meenaxi Panwanda & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
461
4. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan & ors.
(2013) 7 SCC 476

5. Sunil Sharma & ors. Vs Bachitar Singh & ors.
(2011) 11 SCC 425

6. Rajesh & ors. Vs Rajbir Singh & ors. (2013) 3
TAC 697 SC Santosh Devi Vs National Ins. Co.
Ltd. and Others (2012) 6 SCC 421

7. Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & ors. Vs
Ahmedabad Municipal Transp. Service (2013) 4
TAC 369 SC

8. National Ins. Co. Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.
(2017) 0 Supreme SC 1050

9. National insurace Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal &
ors. (2019) 2 T.A.C. 705 SC

10. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC) 442,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shreesh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the appellants, Ms.
Manjima Singh, Advocate holding brief of
Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 and Sri Ram Lakhan
Deobanshi,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.3-New India Assurance
Company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 17.02.2016 passed by Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District Judge/ Special Judge (S.C. and S.T.
Act) Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case
No.324 of 2012 (Meenaxi Panwanda and
others Vs. Raj Kumar and others).

3. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellants that the deceased was 56
years of age. He was an Assistant Manager
(H.R.) in NTPC, Haryana. The Tribunal
has
considered
his
income
to
be
Rs.63.032/- per month. It is submitted by
learned counsel for the appellants that the
income of the deceased should have been
considered to be Rs.82,337/-. The deceased
was survived by his widow and three
daughters, the deduction of 1/3rd towards
personal expenses of the deceased should
not be disturbed. As far as multiplier is
concerned, there is no dispute between the
parties. It is also submitted that the interest
should be granted at the rate of 7.5%.

4. As far as the appeal is concerned,
all other aspects except the compensation
awarded, has attained finality, as the
Insurance Company has not come up in
appeal. It is the appeal filed by claimants.
The issue of negligence has been decided in
favour of the claimants and that issue is not
raised in this appeal and the issue that is
required to be decided is compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, which has not
granted any amount under the head of
future loss of income despite the law
provided for the same. The Tribunal has
considered the income to be Rs. 63,032/-
per month and granted multiplier of 9 with
compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- under nonpecuniary heads and it is this award, which
is under challenge.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants
has heavily relied on the judgments in case
of New India Assurance Company
Limited Vs. Urmila Shukla and others
decided on 06.08.2021 in Civil Appeal
No. 4634 of 2021 as well as in case of
Kirti and another Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited (2021) 2 SCC 166 and
Anita Sharma and others Vs. The New
India Assurance Company Limited and
another 2021 (1) SCC 171 by contending
that the deductions as made by the Tribunal
are faulty and could not have been made.
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The accident occurred in the year 2012 and
appeal is of the year 2018, therefore,
interest, which is granted 7% will have to
be 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the amount is deposited. As far
as deceased is concerned, it is a case of
composite negligence as determined by the
Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants
has relied on the judgment of Vimal
Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and
others AIR 2013 SC 3830 and submitted
that no deduction should be from the salary
of the deceased except income tax but the
Tribunal has deducted all the allowances
and the loan amount for which installment
would be paid. It is submitted by Sri
Srivastava that the same could not be done.
The case of New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. Urmila Shukla
and others decided on 06.08.2021 in Civil
Appeal No. 4634 of 2021 as well as Aneeta
Sharma (supra) is not followed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants
has contended that the Tribunal has given
reason for deduction. PW-1 Meenakshi
Panvanda in her evidence has submitted
that Vijay Kumar before his death has
incurred
huge
amount
for
medical
expenses11 lacs, which has been bifurcated
that he was admitted in Government
hospital, Jhajjar, where he spent Rs.
50,000/- thereafter he was taken to PGI,
Rohtak, where he spent Rs. 1,60,000/- and
further he was admited to Fortis hospital
Noida, where also he has incurred about
Rs. 9,00,000/- that is how Rs. 11,10,000/-
was incurred. The deceased was working in
NTPC Haryana as an Assistant Manager
(H.R.) and his salary was Rs. 1,44,779/- per
month. The age of the deceased was 56
years. In cross examination, it is admitted
as observed by the Tribunal that out of total
amount of Rs. 11,10,000/-, Rs. 9,00,000/-
for medical charges was paid by NTPC and
rest of the amount paid by claimant widow.
The Tribunal very strangely did not believe
the bills as well as the statement of the
appellants and dealt with that this issue as
of it is dealing with civil suit for damages.
The Tribunal relied on the judgment of
Sarla Verma (supra) for deciding the age of
the deceased to be 56 years and after
reproducing paragraph 21 of the said
judgment decided that multiplier of 9
would be admissible. The Tribunal again
started calculating income of the deceased
and has discussed the evidence of PW-1,
who has stated that the income of her
husband was 1,44,779/- and she has three
daughters out of which two daughters have
been married and one is unmarried. PW-3
in his evidence has also stated the same and
it is on the basis of the deductions which
have been made by employer that the
Tribunal has come to the conclusion that
the income would be Rs. 63,032/- per
month despite the fact that there was
clinching evidence. If we consider the
deductions then it also would be Rs.
1,44,779, therefore, the Tribunal has held
that the income of the deceased was Rs.
99,557/-
and
has
deducted
all
the
deductions and has come to the conclusion
that his income was Rs. 63,032/- per
month. This finding is assailed on the basis
of judgment in case of Sunil Sharma and
others Vs. Bachitar Singh and others
2011 (11) SCC 425 and Vimal Kanwar
and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others
2013 (7) SCC 476. The Tribunal has gone
by the conclusion arrived at the judgment
in Sarla Verma (supra) and has calculated
the compensation as follows and committed
error.

8. Rs. 63,032 multiplied by 12, which
comes to Rs. 7,56,384/- and then deducted
9 All. Smt. Meenaxi Panwanda & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
463
1/3 of the income as personal expenses of
the deceased and held that no evidence as
to what was the dependency and the other
damages
and
thereby
calculated
Rs.
5,04,256 x 9 by holding that judgment in
Sarla Verma (supra) specifies that there
should be no addition of the age of the
deceased is more than 50 years after
judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) before the
judgment rendered by the learned judge,
the judgment in Rajesh and others Vs.
Rajbir Singh and others 2013 (3) TAC
697 (SC), Santosh Devi Vs. National
Insurance Company Limited and others
(2012) 6 SCC
421
and Sanobanu
Nazirbhai
Mirza
and
others
Vs.
Ahmedabad
Municipal
Transport
Service 2013 (4) TAC 369 (SC) despite
considering the fact of rule 220A of the
Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh
Amendment) Rules, 2011 the Tribunal held
that no amount for future loss of income
can be granted. We would deduct what is
known as income tax. The income would
be Rs. 82,337 per month + 15% future loss
of income and multiplier of 9 and
deductions as per judgments. We would
have to recalculate the amount as the
learned judge has erred in not going
through the judgment in case of Sunil
Sharma and Vimal Kanwar (supra). If he
would have gleaned the same, he would not
deduct the amount of Rs. 33,000/- per
month from pay of the deceased. The
calculation of deductions is given to us by
the learned counsel for the appellants.

9. Learned counsels for Insurance
Company submitted that the order of the
Tribunal is just and proper and allowance
could not have been considered as income
of the deceased for the purpose calculating
compensation. As far as the deceased was
concerned, he was in the age bracket of 5560 years, which is not in dispute and he
was survived by his widow and three
daughters, which is also not in dispute.

10. This takes this Court to the issue
of compensation. The income of the
deceased in the year of accident and
looking to his profession namely Assistant
Manager (H.R.) in N.T.P.C. can be
considered to be Rs.82,337/- per month and
future loss of income requires to be added
in view of the decision of the Apex Court
in National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050.

11. Hence, the total 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.82,337/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 15% namely Rs.12,350/-

iii.
Total
income
:
Rs.
82,337+12,350 = Rs. 94687/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/3rd : Rs. 63,125/- (rounded up)

v. Annual income : Rs.63,125 x
12 = Rs. 7,57,500/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 9

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.7,57,500 x 9 = Rs.68,17,500/-

viii.
Amount
under
filial
consortium and other non pecuniary heads :
Rs.70,000/-

x.
Total
compensation
:
68,87,500/-

12. 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 :
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"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."

13. 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
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.

14. 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 Vs. Venugopal
reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the
order of investment is not passed because
applicants/claimants are neither illiterate
nor rustic villagers.

15. We are thankful to learned
counsel for the parties for getting decided
the matter.

16. Record, if any, be sent back to the
Tribunal.
----------
(2021)09ILR A464
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2021

BEFORE

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

FAFO No. 2169 of 2007

Smt. Shamim Begum & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Manager, National Insurance Company,
Budaun & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri C.B. Ojha, Sri M.P. Sarraf

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 176-challenge to-claim-deceased
was an agriculturist and was having
vocation of advocacy and the tribunal
considered her income Rs. 62000 p.a. but
has not granted future loss of income-the
deceased
was
survived
by
five
dependents-Total compensation would be
Rs. 10,79,995/- and rate of interest would
be 7% -the insurance company shall
deposit the amount within period of 12
weeks.(Para 1 to 18)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Renu
Singh & ors. FAFO NO. 1818 of 2012
2. Khenyei Vs New India Assur. Co. Ltd. & ors.
(2015) LawSuit SC 469
3. Malarvizhi & ors. Vs United India Ins. Co. Ltd.
& anr. (2020) 4 SCC 228
4. United India Ins.Co. Ltd. Vs Indira Devi & ors.
(2018) 7 SCC 715