# Smt. Munni Devi & Anr v. Anjani Kumar Omar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 103
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-26
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1524 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-munni-devi-anr-v-anjani-kumar-omar-ors-45438
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Motor Accident Claim - Application of
Multiplier - Age of deceased comes under the
age bracket of 51-55 years - Multiplier would
be 11 - Held, the reasoning given by the
Tribunal for applying multiplier of 5 is against
the mandate of Supreme Court. (Para 6)
Appeal partly allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

12 All. Smt. Munni Devi & Anr. Vs. Anjani Kumar Omar & Ors.
103
today. The amount already deposited be
deducted from the amount to be deposited.

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

52. 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.

53.

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

54. This Court feels that a direction
requires to be given to all the Tribunals in
the State that where there are multiple
claims, the learned MACT Tribunal Main
should place all the matters before the same
Tribunal and the same tribunal should
consolidate the matter and decide the same
so that the situation as it arose in this matter
may not arise.

55. This judgment may be sent down to
the concerned Tribunal so that in future he may
be more vigilant while deciding matters under
this beneficial piece of legislation.

56. The Tribunals in the State shall
follow the direction of this Court as herein
afore mentioned 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.

57. This Court is thankful to learned
advocates for arguing and getting matter
disposed of.
----------
(2020)12ILR A103
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2020

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1524 of 2020

Smt. Munni Devi & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Anjani Kumar Omar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Vidya Kant Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Kumar
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Motor Accident Claim - Application of
Multiplier - Age of deceased comes under the
age bracket of 51-55 years - Multiplier would
be 11 - Held, the reasoning given by the
Tribunal for applying multiplier of 5 is against
the mandate of Supreme Court. (Para 6)
Appeal partly allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121
2. National Insurance Company Limited Vs
Pranay Sethi & ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680
3. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs M. Arulmozhi (2014) AAC 1046
4. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)
5. F.A.F.O. No. 23 of 2001, Smt. Sudesna & ors.
Vs Hari Singh & anr., decided on 26.11.2020
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, learned
counsel for the appellants, Sri Arvind Kumar,
learned counsel for the respondent and perused
the judgment and order impugned.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are
that on 7.12.2015 deceased, namely, Virendra
Kumar Pal along with one Mayaram, the
brother-in-law of his elder brother, riding on
motorcycle bearing Registration No. U.P. 78
BW-6535 was going to Village Tikrauli,
District Hamirpur. Mayaram was driving the
motorcycle with normal speed on his side. As
soon as 7.10 am they reached at Village
Amauli, Police Station Sajeti on KanpurHamirpur road, the driver of Truck No. U.P.
78-CN- 5788, driving rashly and negligently
dashed motorcycle on account of which both
succumbed to their injuries on the spot.
Claimants filed claim petition claiming a sum
of Rs.48,27,906/- as compensation.

3. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal,
Kanpur
Nagar
(hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P.
No.194 of 2016 awarded a sum of
Rs.19,29,687/- with 7% annual interest.

4. 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 contention raised in this
petition is that deceased was 52 years and
11 months and the multiplier of 5 applied
by the Tribunal is on lower side on the
basis that the deceased had only five years
service left and hence the multiplier would
be 5.

5. I have perused the Judgment and
order impugned.

6. Even if we consider the age of the
deceased to be above 50 years, he comes
under the age bracket of 51-55. As per the
Judgments of the Apex Court rendered in
Sarla
Verma
Vs.
Delhi
Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050, multiplier would be
11. Thus, the reasoning given in paragraph
31 for applying multiplier of 5 is against
the mandate of Supreme Court and
Judgment of Madras High court rendered in
Branch Manager, National Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Arulmozhi (2014) AAC
1046. It has not to be seen as far as the
claim petition is concerned, hence, this
mistake is apparent on the face of the
record. The multiplier applicable in the
present case would be 11. As far as
deduction of 1/3 is concerned, I am in
agreement that it has been properly
deducted. As far as the rest of the awarded
decree is concerned, the amount granted to
12 All. Shambhu Nath Shukla & Anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh & Anr.
105
widow, who was 40 years of age, and
accident took place on 2003, 10% has to be
added. Therefore, Rs.5000/- is to be added
to the amount under non pecuniary loss as
per decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). The
interest as per Judgment of Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat
Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705
(S.C.) would be 7.5 per cent but Insurance
Company shall not deduct any amount
under the TDS as the cannot be deducted as
per the Judgment of this Court in F.A.F.O.
No.23 of 2001, Smt. Sudesna and others
vs. Hari Singh and another, dated
26.11.2020. Relevant part of the said
Judgment is as under:-

" It is further orally conveyed that
even if the amounts will be deposited, the
Insurance company normally deducts TDS.
The judgement is reviewed and at the end.

"I. On depositing the amount in
the Registry of the Tribunal, Registry is
directed to first deduct the amount of deficit
court fees, if any.

II. 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
is
not
passed
because
applicants/claimants
are
neither
not
illiterate and in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Hussain Babulal Shaikh and
others, 2017 (1) TAC 400 (Bom.).

III. 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 (as
directed in para No. II) without producing
the certificate from the concerned IncomeTax Authority.""

7. The amount shall be deposited on
or before 31.1.2021.

8. It goes without saying that if the
amount is deposited and TDS is deducted,
the Insurance company shall see to it that in
future this mistake is not committed and
will help the appellant in recovering the
said
amount
from
the
income-tax
department.

9. The appeal is partly allowed.

10. This Court is thankful to Sri
Arvind Kumar for ably assisting the court
so that Insurance Company may not have to
pay more interest.
----------
(2020)12ILR A105
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2020

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1538 of 2014

Shambhu Nath Shukla & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Raghubir Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Singh, Sri Amit Kumar Sinha