# Smt. Neelam Gupta & Ors v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 743
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-02
- **Case number:** F.A.F.O. No. 545 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-neelam-gupta-ors-v-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-ors-47391
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Sri Amit Singh

Motor
accident
claim-quantum
of
compensation amount and negligence of
deceased is in question-No amount under
the head of future loss of income grantedtruck came from the right side- as
deposed by the eye witness-driver of
other vehicle did not sustained any injurydeceased to be held 20% negligentIncome
of
the
deceased
wrongly
assessed-50% income has to be added as
future
loss
of
prospects-amount
of
compensation modified.
Appeal prtly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All Smt. Neelam Gupta & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
743

37. The appeal is dismissed.

38. The report of the learned District
Judge, Lucknow dated 15.09.2021 shall
again be kept in the sealed cover in the
records of this appeal.

39. The Registrar General of this
Court shall send/circulate copy of this
judgment to all the District Judges of the
State of Uttar Pradesh, for necessary action
at their end.
----------
(2021)09ILR A743
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2021

BEFORE

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

F.A.F.O. No. 545 of 2021

Smt. Neelam Gupta & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ankur Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amit Singh

Motor
accident
claim-quantum
of
compensation amount and negligence of
deceased is in question-No amount under
the head of future loss of income grantedtruck came from the right side- as
deposed by the eye witness-driver of
other vehicle did not sustained any injurydeceased to be held 20% negligentIncome
of
the
deceased
wrongly
assessed-50% income has to be added as
future
loss
of
prospects-amount
of
compensation modified.
Appeal prtly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

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

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

3. Sandeep Khanduja Vs Atul Dande & ors.,
(2017) 3 SCC (Crl) 178

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

5. FAFO No.199 of 2017, National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs Luv Kush & anr.

6. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs
Smt. Renu Singh & ors., First Appeal From Order
No. 1818 of 2012 decided on 19.7.2016

7. Raghuvir Singh Matolya & ors.. Vs Hari Singh
Malviya & ors., Law 2009 (2) ACCD 1120 SC

8. National Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 & U.P. Rules,
1998

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

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

11. A.Vs Padma Vs Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442

12. Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291

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

 1. Heard Shri Ankur Mehrotra,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Amit Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent-insurance company.
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment dated
03.01.2020 passed by Presiding Officer
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.464 of
2010 awarding a sum of Rs.27,19,838/-
with interest at the rate of 7% as
compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The
respondents concerned have not challenged
the liability imposed on them. The issues to
be
decided
are
the
quantum
of
compensation
awarded
and
whether
deceased was also negligent in causing the
accident. The deceased along with the
claimants were going for worshipping at
the temple of Kaila Devi on the fateful day
i.e. 7.7.2010 when the deceased who was
driving the Maruti Wagon R No UP 14 R
5355 was driving the vehicle on its correct
side at about 11 hours when the vehicle
reached Village Bada Gaon, Vehicle No.RJ
34 G 0950 being driven on wrong-side
rashly and negligently dashed with the
Maruti Car. The driver due to accidental
injuries was in critical condition and no
local hospital admitted him, he was shifted
to Appolo Hospital Delhi where he
succumbed to the injuries. The claimants
contended that the accident occurred due to
the negligence of driver of the other
vehicle. The FIR was lodged against the
driver of the offending vehicle. The
deceased was an Engineer by profession in
LG Electronic India Private Limited and
was having a salary of Rs.31,184/- per
month. The deceased was a bachelor and
was 26 years of age. The deceased left
behind him his father, mother and sister.
The driver and the owner of the other
vehicle involved in the accident did not
appear before the tribunal nor they have
appeared before this Court.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellants that the Tribunal has not
granted any amount towards future loss of
income which is required to be granted in
view of the decision in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and in
view of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998
(hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Rules,
1998). It is further submitted that amount
under non-pecuniary heads which is
granted and the interest awarded by the
Tribunal are on the lower side and requires
enhancement. It is submitted that the issue
of
negligence
also
requires
to
be
redetermined. The tribunal considered the
deceased to be contributor of accident have
taken place despite the fact that the driver
who is the author of the accident against
whom the charge sheet had been laid did
not appear nor stopped into witness box. It
is further submitted that as the deceased
was survived by his parents and sister, the
deduction towards personal expenses of the
deceased should be 1/3rd as per U.P. Rules,
1998 and not half and other pecuniary
benefits should not have been reduced from
income of deceased. In support of his
submission,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants has relied on the judgment of the
Supreme Court titled Vimal Kanwar and
others v. Kishore Dan and others, AIR
2013 SC 3830. It is submitted that the
Supreme Court's decision was cited before
the tribunal but tribunal has deducted
bonus, maintenance allowance, PF and
gratuity from commuptable income holding
that they are not part of the salary and,
therefore, the tribunal held that the same
cannot be considered to be part of the
income. The tribunal added 40% to the
salary, which should be 50%. It is
submitted by learned counsel for appellant
that most unfortunately, the tribunal has
considered the judgment of Sandeep
9 All Smt. Neelam Gupta & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
745
Khanduja v. Atul Dande and Ors., (2017)
3 SCC (Crl) 178. The claim petition was
not filed under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (referred as the Act)
Act but was filed under Section 166 of the
Act and hence, it appears that the learned
tribunal has granted multiplier of 18. The
tribunal
deducted
30%
holding
the
deceased to be also negligent.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and proper and does
not call for any enhancement rather the
multiplier awarded by the Tribunal is on
higher side and it is required to be reduced.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for
appellants that the learned Tribunal should
have gone by the judgment in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC)
1050 and the decision circulated in FAFO
No.199 of 2017, National Insurance
Company Limited v. Luv Kush and
another. It is submitted that the tribunal has
relied on the Rules whereas the judgment of
the Apex Court in Sandeep Khanduza is for
petitions under Section 163-A of the Act. The
Tribunal has granted multiplier of 18 and
therefore the same may be not disturbed. The
non pecuniary compensation could not have
been granted as per the schedule to the Act
which has been found to be faulty by the
Apex Court. It has to be as per the judgments
of Supreme Court decision in Pranay Sethi
(Supra) where it is held that parents are
entitled to filial consortium, funeral charges
and for love and affection. The judgment in
Pranay Sethi (Supra) though has been
considered by the learned tribunal has
misguided itself by relying on Rule 4 of the
U.P. State Motor Vehicle Rules, 2011 which
could not be done as the tribunal is under an
obligation that it should have considered
grant of filial consortium and other pecuniary
benefits, no doubt the rule if they provide for
a better compensation and provide for
beneficial and liberal interpretation they can
be relied on but if the benefit is less compared
to the judicial pronouncement, they will not
prevail and, therefore, also the judgment of
the tribunal requires modification.

7. Heard the learned counsels for the
parties.

8. The issue of negligence has to be
decided from the perspective of the law laid
down by the Courts.

9. The term negligence means failure to
exercise care towards others which a reasonable
and prudent person would in a circumstance.
Negligence can be both intentional or accidental
which can also be accidental. More particularly,
term negligence connotes reckless driving and
the injured of claimants must always prove that
the either side is negligent. If the injury rather
death is caused by something owned or
controlled by the negligent party then he is
directly liable otherwise the principle of "res
ipsa loquitur" meaning thereby "the things
speak for itself" would apply.

10. The principle of contributory
negligence has been discussed time and
again. A person who either contributes or is
author of the accident would be liable for his
contribution to the accident having taken
place.

11. The Division Bench of this Court in
First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012
( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And Others) decided
on 19.7.2016 has held as under :

"16. Negligence means failure to
exercise required degree of care and
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

17. 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.

18. 10th Schedule appended to
Motor
Vehicle
Act
contain
statutory
regulations for driving of motor vehicles
which also form part of every Driving
License. Clause-6 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.

19. 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 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.

20. 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
9 All Smt. Neelam Gupta & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
747
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.

21. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that even if
courts may not by interpretation displace
the principles of law which are considered
to be well settled and, therefore, court
cannot dispense with proof of negligence
altogether in all cases of motor vehicle
accidents, it is possible to develop the law
further on the following lines; when a
motor
vehicle
is
being
driven
with
reasonable care, it would ordinarily not
meet with an accident and, therefore, rule
of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence
may be invoked in motor accident cases
with greater frequency than in ordinary
civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob
Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0
ACJ(SC) 1840).

22. 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 the
other side."

emphasis added

12. The latest decision of the Apex
Court in Khenyei (Supra) has laid down
one further aspect about considering the
negligence
more
particularly
composite/contributory
negligence.
The
deceased or the person concerned should be
shown to have contributed either to the
accident and the impact of accident upon
the victim could have been minimised if he
had taken care. In this case the deceased
was driver of vehicle. The learned tribunal
has lost the sight of one aspect that the
truck came on the wrong side which is
clear from the deposition of eye witness.
The tribunal has considered the sight plan
which is not contradictory to the version
given by the eye-witness. The tribunal
believed the eye witness, the FIR and
charge sheet is filed against the driver of
the other vehicle. The driver of the other
vehicle did not sustain any injury. The
statement recorded on 17.7.2010 of one of
the claimants is also very clear who has
categorically
mentioned
that
accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the other vehicle driver.

13. We hold that the driver of the
other vehicle came on the wrong side. The
site plan shows and has stated that the son
was driving his vehicle at normal speed but
they also told to drive the vehicle at a
moderate speed. We hold the driver namely
deceased to be 20% was travelling
negligence we modify the findings to the
said effect.

Compensation:-

14. Having heard the counsels for the
parties and considered the factual data, the
accident occurred on 07.07.2010 causing
death of Abhishek Gupta who was 26 years
of age and left behind him, parents and
unmarried sister. The Tribunal has assessed
the income of the deceased to be
Rs.25,462/- per month. The deceased was
Senior Engineer in LG Electronics. PW-1
who is the father of deceased stated that the
deceased was working as Senior Engineer
in LG Electronics India Private Ltd,
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Greater NOIDA at a very young age. PW2, Panchgopal who is the Assistant
Manager Department HR of LG Electronics
Private Ltd. stated that deceased was
employed on the post of Senior Engineer11 from 19.9.2007 to 7.7.2010. On
7.7.2010 that is on the faithful day when
the
accident
occurred,
the
deceased
succumbed to the injuries. The deceased
was in the pay band of Rs.37,4212/- and he
was also entitled for bonus. His income tax
was also deducted. At the time of his initial
appointment,
his
basic
salary
was
Rs.10,100/- per month and bonus was
depending on performance of his work,
HRA was Rs.5,050/- per month. Medical
Allowance was Rs.1250/- per month,
Maintenance Allowance was Rs.3200/- per
month, LTA was Rs.10,000/- per month,
PF was Rs.1212/- per month and gratuity
deduction was Rs.412/- per month, when
the deceased passed away his basic salary
was Rs.15,558/- per month. The income
according to counsel for appellant has not
properly been calculated. The submission
that the deceased was Senior Engineer in
LG Electronics is not in dispute even if we
consider the income of the deceased in the
year 2010 and even if we go by the
judgments of the Apex Court wherein it has
been held that income as on date of
accident would be applicable. It
is
submitted that income be considered to be
Rs.30,000/- per month. The tribunal has
considered the income to be Rs.25,000/-
and
has
misdirected
itself
and
has
misinterpreted
the
judgment
titled
Raghuvir Singh Matolya & Ors. v. Hari
Singh Malviya & Ors., Law 2009 (2)
ACCD 1120 SC.

15. The recent judgement of Vimal
Kanwar (Supra) wherein para 19 & 20
of the said judgment the Apex Court has
held as follows:-

"19. The first issue is "whether
Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance
receivable by claimants come within the
periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be
termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for
deduction." The aforesaid issue fell for
consideration before this Court in Helen C.
Rebello (Mrs) and others vs. Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90. In the said
case, this Court held that Provident Fund,
Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash,
bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc.
are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable
by the heirs on account of one's death but
all these have no correlation with the
amount
receivable
under
a
statute
occasioned only on account of accidental
death. Such an amount will not come within
the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to
be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable
for deduction. The following was the
observation and finding of this Court:

"35. Broadly, we may examine
the receipt of the provident fund which is a
deferred payment out of the contribution
made by an employee during the tenure of
his service. Such employee or his heirs are
entitled to receive this amount irrespective
of the accidental death. This amount is
secured, is certain to be received, while the
amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is
uncertain and is receivable only on the
happening of the event, viz., accident,
which may not take place at all. Similarly,
family pension is also earned by an
employee for the benefit of his family in the
form of his contribution in the service in
terms of the service conditions receivable
by the heirs after his death. The heirs
receive family pension even otherwise than
the accidental death. No correlation
between the two. Similarly, life insurance
policy is received either by the insured or
9 All Smt. Neelam Gupta & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
749
the heirs of the insured on account of the
contract with the insurer, for which the
insured contributes in the form of premium.
It is receivable even by the insured if he
lives till maturity after paying all the
premiums. In the case of death, the insurer
indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs,
again in terms of the contract for the
premium paid. Again, this amount is
receivable by the claimant not on account
of any accidental death but otherwise on
the insured's death. Death is only a step or
contingency in terms of the contract, to
receive the amount. Similarly any cash,
bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc.
though are all a pecuniary advantage
receivable by the heirs on account of one's
death but all these have no correlation with
the amount receivable under a statute
occasioned only on account of accidental
death. How could such an amount come
within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles
Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage"
liable for deduction. When we seek the
principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a
similar and same plane having nexus, inter
se, between them and not to which there is
no semblance of any correlation. The
insured (deceased) contributes his own
money for which he receives the amount
which
has
no
correlation
to
the
compensation computed as against the
tortfeasor for his negligence on account of
the accident. As aforesaid, the amount
receivable as compensation under the Act
is on account of the injury or death without
making any contribution towards it, then
how can the fruits of an amount received
through contributions of the insured be
deducted out of the amount receivable
under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount
under this Act he receives without any
contribution. As
we
have
said,
the
compensation payable under the Motor
Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount
receivable under the life insurance policy is
contractual."

20. The second issue is "whether
the salary receivable by the claimant on
compassionate appointment comes within
the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to
be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable
for
deduction."
"Compassionate
appointment" can be one of the conditions
of service of an employee, if a scheme to
that effect is framed by the employer. In
case, the employee dies in harness i.e.
while in service leaving behind the
dependents, one of the dependents may
request for compassionate appointment to
maintain the family of the deceased
employee dies in harness. This cannot be
stated to be an advantage receivable by the
heirs on account of one's death and have no
correlation with the amount receivable
under a statute occasioned on account of
accidental
death.
Compassionate
appointment may have nexus with the death
of an employee while in service but it is not
necessary that it should have a correlation
with the accidental death. An employee dies
in harness even in normal course, due to
illness and to maintain the family of the
deceased one of the dependents may be
entitled for compassionate appointment but
that cannot be termed as "Pecuniary
Advantage" that comes under the periphery
of Motor Vehicles Act and any amount
received on such appointment is not liable
for
deduction
for
determination
of
compensation under the Motor Vehicles
Act."

16. The judgement of Vimal Kanwar
(Supra) will permit us to upturn the said
finding. The amount to be added would be
50% as he was below the age of 40 years
and though may not be in government job.
The deceased was bachelor as direction of
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Apex Court 50% has been deducted. To
which as the deceased was in the age
bracket of 26-30 years, 50% of the income
will have to be added as future loss of
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 and
U.P. Rules, 1998. As far as deduction
towards personal expenses of the deceased
is concerned, it should be 1/2 as the
deceased was a bachelor. The Tribunal
considered the multiplier of 18 which is
bad as per the decision in Sarla Verma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
SCC 121 will have to be followed. The
judgment of Sandeep Khanduja (supra)
can't be made applicable, hence multiplier
of 17 would be admissible. The amount for
non
pecuniary
damages
would
be
Rs.15,000/- for loss of funeral expenses,
Rs.40,000/- for loss of filalial consortium
with 10% increase every three years. The
rounded figure would be Rs.50,000/- for
the mother and father both as per Section
140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

17. The total compensation payable to
the appellants in view of the decision of the
Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) read
with and U.P. Rules, 1998 is computed
herein below:

i. Income Rs.30,000/- p.m.

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 50% namely Rs.15,000/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 30,000 +
Rs.15,000 = Rs.45,000-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/2
: Rs.22,500/-

v. Annual income : Rs.22,500 x
12 = Rs.2,70,000/-

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

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.2,70,000 x 17 = Rs.45,90,000/-

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

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.46,60,000/-

18. The amount will stand reduced by
20% as we have considered the negligence
of the driver of car. Fresh award
widhdrawn by the tribunal in the Claim
Petition No. 464 of 2010.

19. 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."

20. 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 respondentInsurance 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
9 All The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu & Ors.
751
amount is deposited. The amount already
deposited be deducted from the amount to
be deposited.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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 respondentInsurance 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.

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 not blindly apply the judgment
of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be
applied looking to the facts of each case.

25. This Court is thankful to both the
counsels to see that the matter is disposed
of.
----------
(2021)09ILR A751
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

F.A.F.O. No. 724 of 2018

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
 ....Appellants
Versus
Smt. Renu & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Zafar Aziz, Paritosh Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Deshdeepak Bajpai, Ravindra Pratap Singh