# Smt. Mushtari Begum & Ors v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 892
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-14
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No.2629 of 2005
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-mushtari-begum-ors-v-national-insurance-company-ltd-ors-48255
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Appeal
for enhancement
- amount for loss
of
consortium and for funeral expenses- are on
very lower side - it is admitted fact that the age
of the deceased was 40 years - his assessed
income is on lower side - Tribunal has not added
any percentage of amount towards future loss
of income - grave error - rate of interest as
7.5%.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

16. This Court is thankful to both the
counsels for getting this old matter decided.
----------
(2022)03ILR A892
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No.2629 of 2005

Smt. Mushtari Begum & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Arun Prakash, Sri Ram Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Appeal
for enhancement
- amount for loss
of
consortium and for funeral expenses- are on
very lower side - it is admitted fact that the age
of the deceased was 40 years - his assessed
income is on lower side - Tribunal has not added
any percentage of amount towards future loss
of income - grave error - rate of interest as
7.5%.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mushtari Begum & ors. Vs Kamla Shankar &
ors. M.A.C.P. No. 308 of 1999
2. National Insurance Company Vs Pranay Sethi
[2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)

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

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

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

6. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001

7. Tej Kumari Sharma Vs Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Insurance Co. Ltd. First Appeal From
Order No.2871 of 2016
(Delivered by Hon'ble Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the
claimants-appellants
against
the
judgment and award dated 19.07.2005
passed
by
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.1, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as
''Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 308 of 1999
(Mushtari Begum and others Vs. Kamla
Shankar and others), whereby the learned
Tribunal
has
awarded
a
sum
of
Rs.3,67,000/- as compensation to the
claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum.

2. The claimants-appellants have preferred
this appeal for enhancement of quantum.
3 All. Smt. Mushtari Begum & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
893

3. The brief facts of the case are that
claimants-appellants
filed
a
Motor
Accident
Claim
Petition
before
the
Tribunal for claiming the compensation
under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the
death of Rijwan @ Machhan in a road
accident with the averments that on
16.08.1999 the deceased was going from
his house to his brick-kiln in Azamgarh by
car bearing no. U.P. E 928 at 10:20 AM,
when he reached village Alipur within the
jurisdiction of Tehsil Sagri, a bus bearing
no. U.P. 53 A 6885 was coming from
opposite direction, which was being driven
very rashly and negligently by its driver.
The aforesaid bus being driven in such a
manner dashed the deceased's car. In this
accident, deceased sustained very serious
injuries and died on the way to hospital.

4. Aggrieved mainly with the
compensation
awarded,
the
appellants
preferred this appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

6. The accident is not in dispute. The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Limited
(hereinafter referred to as ''Insurance Company')
has not challenged the liability on it. Now the
only issue to be decided is the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. As no
other argument was advanced by any of the
parties when the matter was heard, the details of
case except for deciding the compensation are
not being narrated.

7. Learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants has submitted that the the age of the
deceased was 40 years at the time of accident.
He was owner of brick-kiln and having
agriculture farm also. It is also submitted that
income of the deceased was not less than
Rs.5,000/-per month but learned Tribunal has
assessed his income only Rs.3,000/- per month,
which is on the lower side. It is next submitted
that learned Tribunal has not awarded any sum
towards future loss of income and has deducted
1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased while deceased has left seven
dependents, hence deduction towards personal
expenses should have been 1/5th of the income.

8. Learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants did not disagree with the multiplier
of 15 as applied by the learned Tribunal but it
is contended that learned Tribunal has
awarded only Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of
consortium and Rs.2,000/- for funeral
expenses, which are on very lower side. No
other argument was placed by the appellantsclaimants on the issue of amount of
compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company vehemently opposed the arguments
placed by the appellants and submitted that
learned Tribunal has not committed any error
or illegality in fixing the compensation.
Tribunal has made correct assessment of
income of the deceased and sufficient
compensation
has
been
awarded
in
accordance with law. Hence, it needs no
interference by this Court.

10. Perusal of record shows that it is
admitted fact that the age of the deceased was
40 years at the time of accident but learned
Tribunal has assessed his income Rs. 3,000/
per month-, which is on lower side. Keeping
in view of the fact that deceased was brickkiln owner and having agriculture income
also, we assess the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month i.e.
Rs.60,000/- per annum.

11. The Tribunal has not added any
percentage of amount towards future loss
of income, which, in our opinion, is grave
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
error. Since, the deceased will fall within
the category of self-employed and his age
was 40 years at the time of accident, 25%
shall be added towards future prospects as
held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi
[2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC). As the number of
dependents is seven, 1/5 will be deducted
for personal expenses of the deceased. The
age of the deceased was 40 years, therefore,
as per judgement of Hon'ble the Apex
Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another, 2009
Lawsuit (SC) 613, multiplier of 15 shall be
applied. Tribunal has awarded only 5,000/-
for loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- for
funeral expenses, which are on very lower
side. According to the judgement of the
Apex Court Pranay Sethi (supra) and
Sarla Verma (supra), appellants shall be
entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate. Apart from it, the wife of the
deceased
shall
be
entitled
to
get
Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium with
increase of 10% every three years. Hence,
we
grant
Rs.1,00,000/-
under
nonpecuniary head.

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

(i) Annual Income : 60,000/- Per
annum (Rs.5,000 X 12)

(ii) Percentage towards future
prospects 25% : Rs. 15,000/-

(iii) Total income : Rs. 60,000/- +
Rs.15,000/- = Rs. 75,000/-

(iv) Income after deduction 1/5th
: Rs.60,000/-

(v) Multiplier applicable : 15

(vi) Loss of Dependency : Rs.
60,000 X 15 = Rs.9,00,000/-

(vii)
Amount
under
non
pecuniary head : Rs.1,00,000/-

(ix)
Total
compensation
:
Rs.9,00,000 + 1,00,000/- = Rs.10,00,000/-

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
fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the
light of the above judgment.

15. 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 respondentInsurance Company. shall deposit the
amount within a period of 08 weeks from
3 All. Jiuti Devi & Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar Rai & Ors.
895
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.
----------
(2022)03ILR A895
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J.MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2705 of 2015
Jiuti Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Manoj Kumar Rai & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, Sri Hemant
Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, Sri Pawan Kumar
Mishra

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Seeking enhancement- Tribunal held a multiplier
of 'Five' would apply - first to be encountered is
the age of the deceased - Rs.40,000/- towards
spousal consortium shall be set apart and paid
exclusively to Smt. Jiuti Devi - 70% whereas the
balance 30% shall be divided equally amongst
claimant-appellant
nos.
2,
3
and
4
-
compensation to be distributed amongst the
claimant-appellants.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ramachandrappa Vs Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236

2. Sarla Verma (Smt) & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121

3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680
4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & ors.
2020 SCC OnLine SC 410

5. General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum
Vs Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176

6. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362

7. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Charlie,
(2005) 10 SCC 720

8. Reshma Kumari Vs Madan Mohan, (2013) 9
SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 826