# Smt. Munni & Ors v. M/S Ahamdabad Bangal Roadways Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 255
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-24
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1654 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-munni-ors-v-m-s-ahamdabad-bangal-roadways-pvt-ltd-new-delhi-ors-48305
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Torts Law - Motor Vehicle Act,1988 -
Sections 163A,166 & 173 - quantum of
compensation - The Uttar Pradesh State
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998(amended in
2011) - Section 220 - compensation
should not be bonanza to the claimants
nor should be such a meager amount -
notional income cannot be considered
when
there
is
documentary
evidence.(Para - 7)

(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
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 -
15)

Appellants filed a motor accident claim petition -
seeking compensation of her husband - selling
whole-sale vegetables - died in a road accident
- Awarded compensation Rs.7,77,500/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum - tribunal
not granted any amount for future of loss of
income - aggrieved hence appeal.

HELD:-Total
compensation:
19,00,000/-.
Direction to respondent-Insurance Company to
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.
Amount
already
deposited
be
deducted
from
the
amount
to
be
deposited.(Para -14 )

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

4 All. Smt. Munni & Ors. Vs. M/S Ahamdabad Bangal Roadways Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Ors.
255
deposited. The amount already deposited be
deducted from the amount to be deposited.

13. 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 rustic
villagers.

14. 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.

15.

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.
----------
(2022)04ILR A255
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1654 of 2021

Smt. Munni & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
M/S Ahamdabad Bangal Roadways Pvt.
Ltd. New Delhi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Virendra Singh, Sri Akhilesh Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra

(A) Torts Law - Motor Vehicle Act,1988 -
Sections 163A,166 & 173 - quantum of
compensation - The Uttar Pradesh State
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998(amended in
2011) - Section 220 - compensation
should not be bonanza to the claimants
nor should be such a meager amount -
notional income cannot be considered
when
there
is
documentary
evidence.(Para - 7)

(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
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 -
15)

Appellants filed a motor accident claim petition -
seeking compensation of her husband - selling
whole-sale vegetables - died in a road accident
- Awarded compensation Rs.7,77,500/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum - tribunal
not granted any amount for future of loss of
income - aggrieved hence appeal.

HELD:-Total
compensation:
19,00,000/-.
Direction to respondent-Insurance Company to
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.
Amount
already
deposited
be
deducted
from
the
amount
to
be
deposited.(Para -14 )

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. N.I.A.C.L. Vs Reshma Devi & ors.., III (2017)
ACC 68 (DB)

2. St. of Har. & ors.. Vs Jasveer Kaur & ors..
ACC 2004 (4)

3. Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs Mahadev
Sethi & ors. 2003 (2) 326

4. N.I.I.C.L.Vs Satendra & ors.. 2007 (324)

5. N.I.I.C.L. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors., 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050

6. Vimla Devi & ors. Vs N.I.C.L.& anr., (2019) 2
SCC 186

7. Smt. Meena Pawaia & ors.. Vs Ashraf Ali &
ors.. 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694
8. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation,
(2009) 6 SCC 121

9. N.I.C.L.Vs Pranay Sethi & ors., 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050

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

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

12. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.,
First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001

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

14. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Privae Ltd. Vs U.O.I. & ors.

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

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the
claimants-appellants
against
the
judgement and award passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/XI Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr
dated 27.09.2018 in MACP No.404 of 2016
(Smt. Munni & others Vs. M/s Ahmadabad
Bangal Roadways Pvt. Ltd and others), by
which
the
Tribunal
has
awarded
compensation Rs.7,77,500/- with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants
and
learned
counsel
for
respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
appellants filed a motor accident claim
petition for seeking compensation of her
husband, who died in a road accident. As
per
averments
in
the
petition,
on
20.06.2016 at about 3:00 pm-4:00 pm, the
deceased along with Anand, Mahesh and
4 All. Smt. Munni & Ors. Vs. M/S Ahamdabad Bangal Roadways Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Ors.
257
Arun was going from Nachkauli to Dadari
Mandi on a Vehicle bearing No.UP 13 T
5479. After sometime, when they reached
at Payal Family Dhaba, their tyre got
punctured. Teetu and his colleague were
repairing the puncture of the vehicle by
parking the vehicle on the left corner, a
truck bearing No.H.R. 38 U 2577 2023,
which was being driven by its driver very
rashly and negligently, hit the aforesaid
vehicle from behind. In this accident Teetu
@ Mahendra got injured. Teetu died on the
spot.

4. The accident is not in dispute.
The
insurance
company
has
not
challenged the judgement and award of
the Tribunal nor it has challenged the
liability to pay compensation. The issue
of negligence has attained finality as no
appeal or cross objections are filed by the
insurance company. Hence, the only
question remains to be decided in this
appeal is with regard to the quantum of
compensation and hence, additional facts
are avoided.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants has submitted that the learned
Tribunal
has
not
awarded
just
compensation. Learned counsel submitted
that the deceased was an agriculturalist.
The learned Tribunal did not consider the
actual income of the deceased and rather
assumed his earning only Rs.6,000/- per
month. It is next submitted by learned
counsel for the appellants that the learned
Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- for
loss of love and affection, Rs.2,500/- for
loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- for funeral
expenses, which are on lower-side and
not granted as per decisions of the Apex
Court. With regard to the rate of interest,
it is submitted that the Tribunal has
awarded 6% per annum rate of interest
which is even lower then the statutory
rate of interest stipulated in U.P. Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1998 (amended in 2011).

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
insurance
vehemently
submitted
that
appellants have not led any evidence
regarding the income of the deceased. It is
submitted by learned counsel that learned
Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of
the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month
because it is not proved that the deceased
was an agriculturist. It is further submitted
that the amount under the head of nonpecuniary damages is properly granted. It is
submitted by learned counsel that there is
no infirmity or illegality in the impugned
award which calls for any interference by
this Court.

7.

While
considering
the
compensation,
the
Tribunal
has
not
considered the income of the deceased. The
deceased was also selling whole-sale
vegetables
for
which
documentary
evidence as Ext.-31C2/1 & 31C2/65 and
likewise documents were produced. The
counsel for the appellants before the
Tribunal also had relied on the decision of
this Court in III (2017) ACC 68 (DB) New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Reshma
Devi & others. The Tribunal brushed aside
the documentary evidence. The Tribunal
relied on State of Harayan & Others Vs.
Jasveer Kaur & Others ACC 2004 (4),
Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs.
Mahadev Sethi & Others 2003 (2) 326
and New India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs.
Satendra & others 2007 (324) and held
that compensation should not be bonanza to
the claimants nor should be such a meager
amount and relying on the judgement of
Reshma
Devi
(supra),
the
Tribunal
considered the income of the deceased to
be Rs.6,000/- per month. On what basis,
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
income was Rs.6,000/- per month cannot
be fathomed. The notional income cannot
be considered when there was documentary
evidence. Documentary evidence goes to
show from the record that from wholesale
business of the deceased he used to earn at
least Rs.8,000/- per month as the bills range
from
Rs.10,000/-
for
21.03.2014
&
23.07.2014 and therefore, he was in the
business cannot be brushed aside. Hence,
this Court considers the income of the
deceased to be Rs.10,000/- and just because
the documents were xerox copies the same
could not have been brushed aside. This is
supported in its view by decision of the
Apex court in cases titled (i) National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC)
1050 and (ii) Vimla Devi and others Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited
and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186 as the
documents go to show that even for the
year 2014 and 2016 the income of the
deceased
can
be
considered
to
be
Rs.10,000/- per month at least for a month
from the documentary evidence. On which,
reliance is laid, therefore this Court holds
that the income of the deceased would be
Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has
misinterpreted the word ''self-employed'
and has not granted any amount for future
of loss of income. The term ''self-employed'
would mean a person doing his own
business. We clarify this aspect as we have
come across many judgements in which
this apparent error on the face of the
record is found. We would clarify that in
Pranay Sethi (supra) and the judgement of
the Apex Court in decision, namely, Smt.
Meena Pawaia & others Vs. Ashraf Ali
and others 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694, has
also considered the term employment. The
term ''self-employed' is being explained by
us and therefore, the income is held to be
Rs.10,000/- per month plus 40% as the
judgement of Pranay Sethi (supra) would
apply and as the deceased was below 40
years this Court further has come across
error on the part of the Tribunal which is
and we would like to emphasize upon the
Tribunals in the State not to go by the
Second Schedule as it is meant for
compensation under Section163A of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and not claim for
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
As far as Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 is concerned, the judgement of
the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) has
to be followed and the later judgements
which lay down grant of non-pecuniary
damages. As far as rate of interest is
concerned, the Tribunal could not have
granted 6% which is even less than
statutory rate of interest as per Section 220
of the Uttar Pradesh State Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998 (amended in 2011).

8. The learned Tribunal has rightly
deducted 1/3 for personal expenses in
accordance with the judgement of the Apex
Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . We are
not convinced with the multiplier applied
by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has
applied multiplier of 16 while it should
have been of 15 as the deceased was in the
age bracket of 36-40.

9. Under non-pecuniary heads,
learned
Tribunal
has
awarded
only
Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection,
Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.2,000/-
for funeral expenses, which is not in
consonance with the judgement of Apex
Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,
2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 , hence, the
appellants
shall
be
entitled
to
get
Rs.70,000/- for non-pecuniary heads. The
4 All. Smt. Munni & Ors. Vs. M/S Ahamdabad Bangal Roadways Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Ors.
259
deceased had three minor children, they
would be entitled to consortium of
Rs.50,000/- each as they have lost the
affection of father at a very tender age.

10. Hence, the total compensation, in
view of the above discussions, payable to
the appellants-claimants is being computed
herein below:

i.
Annual
Income
Rs.10,000/
- x 12
Rs.1,20,0
00/-
ii. Percentage
towards
FutureProspects
(40%)

Rs.1,20,00
0 /- x 40%
Rs.48,00
0/-
iii. Total Income

Rs.
1,20,000/-
+
Rs.
48,000 /-
Rs.1,68,0
00/-
iv. Income after
deduction of
1/3
Rs.1,68,00
0/-
-
Rs.56,000/
-
Rs.1,12,0
00/-
v.
Multiplier
applicable
15

vi. Loss
of
dependency
Rs.1,12,00
0 /- x 15
Rs.16,80,
000/-
vii. Amount
under Nonpecuniary
Heads
Rs.1,50,00
0/-
+Rs.70,000
/-
Rs.2,20,0
00/-
ix. Total
Compensatio
n
Rs.16,80,0
00/-
+Rs.2,20,0
00/-
Rs.19,00,
000/-

11. 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."

13. Learned Tribunal has awarded rate
of interest as 6% per annum but we are
fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% on
enhanced compensation in the light of the
above judgment.

14. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified
to the aforesaid extent. The insurance
company shall deposit the 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.

15. 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 if
total amount of interest, accrued on the
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
principal amount of compensation is to be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis and if the interest payable to any
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 but 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.

16. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Privae 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.
Since long time has elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Bank Account of
claimant(s) in a nationalized Bank.

17. We request the Registrar General
to place a copy of this Judgement before
the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for circulating
it to the Tribunals for their guidances, so
that, the Tribunals may not commit the
same error as committed in this litigation.
----------
(2022)04ILR A260
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 2368 of 2003
with
First Appeal From Order No. 1530 of 2008

NTPC ...Appellant
Versus
ESIC, Sarvodaya Nagar Kanpur & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Sri N.C.
Rajvanshi, Sri Piyush Bhargava, Sri Vivek
Ratan Agrawal.

Counsel for the Respondents:

(A) Civil Law - Employee State Insurance
Act,1948 - beneficial peace of legislation -
Applicability of the Act - Section 45A -
Determination of contributions in certain
cases ; Section 75,75(g),75(2B) - matters
to be decided by the Employees Insurance
court - Court has power to waive or
reduce the amount where the dispute
goes to the root of the dispute that the
appellant is not liable, the jurisdiction and
powers of the Court were with them -
provisions of law demanding of 50%
would be a directly order but provisions of
Section 75 (2B) are not mandatory. (Para
- 5,12)

Order of Commissioner and subsequent order -
under challenge - grounds - no final order under
Section
45-A
of
Act
passed
against
plaintiff/Appellant - amount mentioned in show
cause noyice cannot be treated as amount due
against - direction to deposit 50% of amount -
provisions of Section 75(2B) of Act not
applicable - refused to decide application for
grant of temporary injunction - reliefs sought -