# Smt. Nirmala Rai & Ors v. M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., New Delhi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 859
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-06
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1956 of 2002
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Vivek Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-nirmala-rai-ors-v-m-s-oswal-agro-mills-ltd-new-delhi-ors-46651
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Death Claim -
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 -
Compensation - Death claim - First Appeal No.
1956 of 2002 - deceased aged about 42 years,
having six dependants, income assessed at Rs.
11,950/- per month - Future prospects : 30% of
the income has to be added under the head of
future prospects - deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased : it should be 1⁄4 as
the deceased had six persons to feed - Multiplier
applicable : 14 (as the deceased was in the age
bracket of 41-45 years) - Amount under non
pecuniary heads : Rs.70,000/- + 10% rise every
three years rounded as Rs. 1,00,000 - Total
compensation : Rs. 20,57,368/- (Para 14)

B. Civil Law - Motor Accident Death Claim - Motor
Vehicles Act,1988 - Section 166 - Compensation
- Death claim - First Appeal No. 1856 of 2002 -
deceased aged about 46 years, having four
dependants, income assessed at Rs. 4100 - per
month - Future prospects : deceased aged about
46 years, hence 30% of the income has to be
added under the head of future prospects -
deduction towards personal expenses of the
deceased : it should be 1⁄4 as the deceased had
four persons to feed - contributory negligence -
40% of contributory negligence is to deduct from
the total compensation (Para 14)

Allowed. (E-5)

Cases Relied on :

## Text

11 All. Smt. Nirmala Rai & Ors. Vs. M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., New Delhi & Ors.
859
----------
(2021)11ILR A859
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2021 & 28.09.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1956 of 2002
with
First Appeal From Order No. 1856 of 2002
with
First Appeal From Order No. 1854 of 2002

Smt. Nirmala Rai & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., New Delhi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Arvind Kumar, Sri B.B. Jauhari, Sri
Saurabh Srivastava

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Death Claim -
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 -
Compensation - Death claim - First Appeal No.
1956 of 2002 - deceased aged about 42 years,
having six dependants, income assessed at Rs.
11,950/- per month - Future prospects : 30% of
the income has to be added under the head of
future prospects - deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased : it should be 1⁄4 as
the deceased had six persons to feed - Multiplier
applicable : 14 (as the deceased was in the age
bracket of 41-45 years) - Amount under non
pecuniary heads : Rs.70,000/- + 10% rise every
three years rounded as Rs. 1,00,000 - Total
compensation : Rs. 20,57,368/- (Para 14)

B. Civil Law - Motor Accident Death Claim - Motor
Vehicles Act,1988 - Section 166 - Compensation
- Death claim - First Appeal No. 1856 of 2002 -
deceased aged about 46 years, having four
dependants, income assessed at Rs. 4100 - per
month - Future prospects : deceased aged about
46 years, hence 30% of the income has to be
added under the head of future prospects -
deduction towards personal expenses of the
deceased : it should be 1⁄4 as the deceased had
four persons to feed - contributory negligence -
40% of contributory negligence is to deduct from
the total compensation (Para 14)

Allowed. (E-5)

Cases Relied on :

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

2. General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum v.
Susamma Thomas & ors.,(1994) 2 SCC 176

3. U.P.S.R.T.C. & ors. Vs Trilok Chandra & ors.(1996)
4 SCC 362

4. Sarla Dixit Vs Balwant Yadav AIR 1996 SC 1274

5. Hardeo Kaur Vs Rajasthan State Transport
Corporation, 1992 2 SCC 567

6. Puttamma Vs K.L.Narayana Reddy, AIR 2014 SC
706

7. Raman Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs Bidyadhar Dutta, 2006 (3) SCC
242

8. R.K.Malik Vs Kiran Pal, AIR 2009 SC 2506

9. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi, AIR
2017 SC 5157

10. Raj Rani Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
2009 (13) SCC 654

11. Ritaben @ Vanitaben Wd/o. Dipakbhai Hariram &
anr. v/s.Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service &
anr.,
1998 (2) G.L.H. 670

12. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Urmila Shukla &
ors., LL 2021 SC 359

13. Malarvizhi & ors Vs United India Insurance Co. td.
& anr. 2020 (4) SCC 228
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal &
ors. 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)

15. Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. 2007(2) GLH 291

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

1. Since similar questions of fact and law are
involved in the present appeals, therefore, they are
being heard and decided by common judgment.

2. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for
the appellants, Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 3, United India
Insurance Company Limited, insurer of truck,
learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent,
Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the owner of
the truck, Sri Ajay Kumar, learned Standing
Counsel in FAFO No. 1854 of 2002 and Sri S.K.
Mehrotra, learned Standing Counsel in FAFO No.
1856 of 2002.

3. The present appeals have been filed by the
claimants against judgment and award dated
28.05.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.10,
Allahabad, (in short " the Tribunal") in Claim
Petitions No. 347 of 1997, 399 of 1997 and 346 of
1997.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present
appeals are that on 22.01.1997 at about 09.00 AM
Bashistha Narain Rai, who at the relevant time was
posted as Deputy Director in Agriculture
Department, Lucknow, along with Imtiyaz Ali,
who was posted as Accountant in Agriculture
Department, Lucknow, were going to Lucknow
from Allahabad by government jeep no. UP 70/B
2416 driven by Shiv Prasad driver. Said jeep head
on collided with truck no. UP 27/5513, which was
coming from Raibaraeli side near village Arkha,
Unchahar. On account of which the driver of jeep
Shiv Prasad and Imtiyaz Ali died on the spot while
Bashistha Narain Rai received serious injuries. He
was treated at PHC, Unchahar, thereafter, he was
referred to SGPGI, Lucknow, where he died
during the course of medical treatment.

5. The claim petition no. 347 of 1997 has
been
filed
by
the
legal
representatives/dependents
of
deceased
Bashishtha Narain Rai, claim petition no. 399 of
1997
has
been
filed
by
the
legal
representatives/dependents of Shiv Prasad and
claim petition no. 346 of 1997 has been filed by
the legal representatives/depedents of Imtiyaz
Ali.

6. At this stage it is pertinent to state here
that against the award dated 28.05.2002 passed
by the Tribunal in claim petition no. 346 of 1997
and 347 of 1997, the State of U.P. preferred
FAFO No. 1363 of 2015 (State of U.P. through
Deputy Director of Agriculture, Allahabad Vs.
Shahjhan Begum and others) and FAFO No.
1360 of 2015 (State of U.P. through Deputy
Director of Agriculture, Allahabad Vs. Smt.
Nirmala Rai and others) before this Court and
both the appeals were dismissed on 28.08.2017
by following order:

"After going through the evidence on
record and the arguments of the counsel for the
parties, we find that the point put forward by the
learned Standing Counsel in respect of entire
negligence of the truck driver is not established
from the record. The evidence on record goes to
indicate that there was head on collision
between both the vehicles. When there was head
on
collision,
then
evidence
has
to
be
appreciated. The evidence, which was led, goes
to indicate that both the drivers were negligent.
The Jeep in question was a Government vehicle.
The charge sheet was submitted against the
truck driver. It is therefore evident from the
conduct of the Investigating Officer that he tried
11 All. Smt. Nirmala Rai & Ors. Vs. M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., New Delhi & Ors.
861
to give undue protection to the Government
vehicle by not filing any charge sheet against the
driver of the Jeep. The evidence has been led to
the effect that the truck owner is responsible, but
looking to the pleading of the parties and the site
plan as well as the evidence on record, the
Tribunal has come to the conclusion that drivers
of both the vehicles were negligent and liability
of 40% has been fixed upon the Government
(owner of the jeep) whereas 60% liability has
been fixed upon the owner of the truck. The
argument of the learned Standing Counsel is
that no such evidence is available on the record
on the basis of which negligence of the driver of
the Jeep can be fixed, but in view of the finding
recorded by the Tribunal, we are not able to
appreciate the aforesaid argument. The Tribunal
is the first stage court which records the
evidence and is also able to gather evidence
from the parties; as to what evidence has been
led and what decision should be taken, it is for
the Tribunal to decide. The question of
contributory negligence being a question of fact,
we are not inclined to interfere with the
aforesaid finding.

Therefore, both the appeals fail and
they are accordingly dismissed."

7. Counsel for the parties submit that the
order dated 28.08.2017 passed by this Court has
attained finality. Thus, 40% negligence has been
fastened upon Shiv Prasad, driver (deceased) of
the jeep no. UP 70/B 2416.

8. Counsel for the appellants submits that
the Tribunal vide separate judgment and order
dated 28.05.2002 has not granted any amount to
the claimants towards future loss of income of
the deceased, which was required to be granted
in view of the decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC)
1050. It is further submitted that the amount
under non-pecuniary heads granted and the
interest awarded by the tribunal are on lower
side and requires enhancement.

9. As against this, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has submitted that the
award does not require any interference. The
Tribunal has not committed any error in granting
the compensation as awarded.

10. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is
also not in dispute. The respondent concerned
has not challenged the liability imposed on
them. The only issue to be decided is, the
quantum of compensation awarded.

11. The submission that the Tribunal has
not granted any amount towards future loss of
income. Grant of future prospects will have to be
traced back and reference can be had to the
decision
in
General
Manager,
Kerala
S.R.T.C., Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas
& Ors.,(1994) 2 SCC 176 wherein addition of
future prospects was also calculated. The
decision in Susamma Thomas (Supra) was
referred in U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. v. Trilok
Chandra & Ors.(1996) 4 SCC 362 which have
been considered by the Apex Court in Sarla
Dixit Versus Balwant Yadav AIR 1996 SC
1274 and the Apex Court has considered
decision in Hardeo Kaur V/s. Rajasthan State
Transport Corporation, 1992 2 SCC 567. The
decision in Sarla Dixit has been considered to
be
good
law
in
(1)
Puttamma
Vs.
K.L.Narayana Reddy, AIR 2014 SC 706 (2)
Raman Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited, Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar
Dutta, 2006 (3) SCC 242 : (3) Sarla Verma
(supra)(4)R.K.Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, AIR 2009
SC 2506 (5)National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157
Raj Rani Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, 2009 (13) SCC 654. We have gone
through the decisions in those days referred to
herein above and the judgment of Gujarat high
court in Ritaben alias Vanitaben Wd/o.
Dipakbhai Hariram and Anr. v/s.Ahmedabad
Municipal Transport Service & Anr., 1998 (2)
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
G.L.H. 670, wherein, the Court has observed as
under:

"para-7: It is settled proposition of
that the main anxiety of the Tribunal in such
case should be to see that the heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased are placed, as
far as possible, in the same financial position, as
they would have been, had there been no
accident. It is therefore, an action based on the
doctrine of compensation.

para-8: It may also be mentioned that
perfect determination of compensation in such
tortuous
liability
is,
hardly,
obtainable.
However, the Tribunal is required to take an
overall view of the facts and the relevant
circumstances
together
with
the
relevant
proposition of law and is obliged to award an
amount of compensation which is just and
reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

para-10: Even in absence of any other
evidence an able bodied young man of 25 years,
otherwise also presumed to earn an amount of
Rs.1000/- or more per month, on that basis the
prospective income could be calculated by
doubling the one prevalent on the date of the
accident, which is required be divided by half,
so as to reach the correct datum figure which is
required to be multiplied by appropriate
multiplier. Even taking a conservative view in
the matter, the deceased would be earning not
less than an amount of Rs.1000/- per month and
considering the prospective average income of
Rs.2000/- and divided by half, would, obviously
come to Rs.1500/."

12. Thus even in year 1990 to 2000, the
addition of future prospects was not ruled out. Just
because tribunals in Uttar Pradesh were not
granting future loss, it cannot hold field where the
decision of Apex Court is otherwise as
demonstrated with decision though of persuasive
value of Gujarat High Court referred herein above,
therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the
respondent that no amount under the head of future
loss of income was admissible in those days, will
have to be considered. The decision of the Apex
Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Urmila Shukla and others, LL 2021 SC 359
will have to be looked into. Therefore, we will
have to consider the same in the light of the recent
decisions as well as the decisions of the Apex
Court prevailing.

13. In Malarvizhi & Ors Vs. United India
Insurance Company Limited and Another,
2020 (4) SCC 228, it has been held that Income
Tax is the mirror of one's income unless proved
otherwise, Even in the earlier days, the factors to
be
considered
for
issuing
quantum
of
compensation reads as follows:

i. To give present value, a reasonable
deduction or reduction is required as lump sum
amount is given at a stretch under the head of
prospective economic loss;

ii. The tax element is also required to
be considered as observed in the Gourley's case
(1956 AC 185).

iii. The resultant impairment/death on
the earning capcity of the claimant/claimants .

iv. That the amount of interest is
awarded also on the prospective loss of income.

v. That the amount of compensation is
not exemplary or punitive but is compensatory.

14. Heard learned counsels for the parties
and considered the factual data and following
the decision of Apex Court in Pranay Sethi
(Supra) and the latest judgment of Apex Court in
the matter of Urmila Shukla (Supra), the total
compensation payable to the appellants in each
of the appeals are computed herein below:

First Appeal No. 1956 of 2002

This Court found that the Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.
11,950/- per month. To which as the deceased
was aged about 42 years, hence 30% of the
income has to be added under the head of future
11 All. Smt. Nirmala Rai & Ors. Vs. M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., New Delhi & Ors.
863
prospects. As far as deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased is concerned, it should
be 1⁄4 as the deceased had six persons to feed.
Hence total compensation payable to the
appellant is computed herein below:

i. Income Rs. 11,950/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: 30% namely Rs. 3585/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 11,950 + 3585 =
Rs. 15,535/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/4th :
Rs. 11,651/-

v. Annual income : Rs. 11,651 x 12 =
Rs. 1,39,812/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 14 (as the
deceased was in the age bracket of 41-45 years)

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs. 1,39,812
x 14 = Rs. 19,57,368/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : Rs.70,000/- + 10% rise every three years
rounded as Rs. 1,00,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.
20,57,368/-

First Appeal No. 1856 of 2002

This Court found that the Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.
4100/- per month. To which as the deceased was
aged about 46 years, hence 30% of the income
has to be added under the head of future
prospects. As far as deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased is concerned, it should
be 1⁄4 as the deceased had four persons to feed.
Further 40% of contributory negligence is to
deduct from the total compensation. Hence total
compensation payable to the appellant is
computed herein below:

i. Income Rs. 4100/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: 30% namely Rs. 1230/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 4100 + 1230 =
Rs. 5330/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/4th :
Rs. 3998/-

v. Annual income : Rs. 3998 x 12 =
Rs. 47,976/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 13 (as the
deceased was in the age bracket of 46-50 years)

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs. 47976 x
13 = Rs. 6,23,688/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : Rs.70,000/- + 10% rise every three years
rounded as Rs. 1,00,000/-

ix. Total compensation : Rs. 6,23,688/-
+ 1,00,000/- = Rs. 7,23,688/-

x.
Deduction
of
amount
of
contributory negligence: 40% = Rs. 2,89,475/-

xi. Amount payable to the claimants:
Rs. 7,23,688/- - Rs. 2,89,475/- = Rs. 4,34,213/-

First Appeal No. 1854 of 2002

This Court found that the Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.
6700/- per month. To which as the deceased was
aged about 53 years, hence 20% of the income
has to be added under the head of future
prospects. As far as deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased is concerned, it should
be 1⁄4 as the deceased had five persons to feed.
Hence total compensation payable to the
appellant is computed herein below:

i. Income Rs. 6700/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: 15% namely Rs. 1005/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 6700 + 1005 =
Rs. 7705/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/4th :
Rs. 5778/-

v. Annual income : Rs. 5778 x 12 =
Rs. 69,336/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 11 (as the
deceased was in the age bracket of 51-55 years)

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs. 69,336 x
11 = Rs. 7,62,696/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : Rs.70,000/- + 10% rise every three years
rounded as Rs. 1,00,000/-

ix. Total compensation : Rs. 7,62,696/-
+ 1,00,000/- = Rs. 8,62,696/-

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
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

15. No other grounds are urged orally
when the matter was heard finally.

16. 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
of
compensation as per the ratio fixed by the
tribunal 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. The state shall
also deposit their share as per award of
tribunal.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly as
per modification made herein.

In
re:
Civil
Misc.
Correction
Application No. 4 of 2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In
the
sixteenth
paragraph
of
the
judgment dated 06.09.2021, in the third line
after the word 'amount' the words "of
compensation as per the ratio fixed by the
tribunal.", and in the seventh line after the
'full stop' the sentence "The State shall also
deposit their share as per award of tribunal."
shall be read.

The correction application is accordingly
allowed.
----------
11 All. Rajesh Singh & Anr. Vs. Margub Ali & Ors.
865
(2021)11ILR A865
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.09.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 3018 of 2014

Rajesh Singh & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Margub Ali & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri V.S. Rajpoot, Sri H.M. Srivastava, Sri Ram
Shiromani Yadav, Sri S.D. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nagendra Kr. Srivastava, Sri Sanjay Singh

Civil Law - Motor Accident Death Claim - Motor
Vehicles Act,1988 - Section 166 - Enhancement
of Compensation - Wife of claimant, Smt. Rita
Singh posted as Assistant Teacher - On
19.2.2013, she was travelling as a pillion rider
on motor cycle, when a truck being driven
rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle
as a result of which Smt. Rita Singh died on the
spot itself - Claimant sought enhancement of
compensation on ground that as the deceased
was below 40 years and salaried person, 50 per
cent should have been added to her income
under the head of future prospect, amount
under the head of pecuniary loss ought to have
been awarded & Interest is to be enhanced -
Insurance company resisted claim on ground
that husband cannot be considered to be
dependent on his wife, he would have his own
earnings - Held - Court fixed income of the
deceased at Rs.25,000 - Added 50% under the
head of Future Prospect - Deduction of 1⁄2
towards personal expenses as there was only
one dependent, i.e., minor son - As the
deceased was 36 years of age, multiplier of 16
and not 17 applied - Husband and son lost their
wife and mother, hence, Rs.70,000/- awarded
towards non pecuniary damages - Court found
Chandra Bhan, driver of the motorcycle to be
25% negligent therefore deducted 25% from
the amount payable by the Insurance Company
- Compensation payable to the claimants after
deduction of 25% of amount would be
Rs.27,52,500 - rate of interest should be 7.5%
from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the amount is deposited (Para 13, 14)

Allowed. (E-5)

Cases Relied on :

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

2. Sunil Sharma Vs Bachitar Singh, Laws (SC)-2011-2-73

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

4. Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & ors.,
2015 LawSuit (SC) 469

5. Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri Vs Karmasey
Kunvargi Tak dt 05.08.2002 Appeal (Civil) No. 5436
of 1994

6. Raj Rani & ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Company
Limited & ors. dt 06.05.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 333318 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2792-27793
of 2008)

7. Archit Saini Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.&
ors., 2018 ) AIR (SC) 1143

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

9. A.Vs Padma Vs Venugopal 2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442

10. Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., 2007(2) GLH 291

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

1. Heard Sri S.D. Ojha, Advocte, holding
brief of Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned