# Smt. Pista Devi & Ors v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 897
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-28
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2526 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-pista-devi-ors-v-the-new-india-insurance-co-ltd-ors-48671
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166 & 173 - Motor Accident claim
- Quantum of compensation - accident
took place in the year 2013 - deceased
was about 52 years of age and was
working on the post of Charge-man (F) in
Indian Oil Corporation, Mathura Refinery
& Rs 79876 per month was his salary -
Tribunal
did
not
grant
any
amount
towards future loss of income, granted
multiplier of 9 & granted only a sum of Rs.
5000 towards filial consortium - Held -
Multiplier is 11 for age group of 51 to 55
years - future loss to the dependents is
awarded at the rate of 20% of the income
of the deceased and compensation for non
pecuniary damages awarded Rs. 70,000
and towards the compensation for loss of
love and affection is awarded Rs. 30000
(Para 10)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. Smt. Pista Devi & Ors. Vs. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
897
Nationalized Bank. The amount shall be
credited in the said account without
investment.

25. We are thankful to learned
counsel for the parties for ably assisting
this court in getting this old appeal
disposed of.
----------
(2022)06ILR A897
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 2526 of 2014

Smt. Pista Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
 ....Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri B.P. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Kumar

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166 & 173 - Motor Accident claim
- Quantum of compensation - accident
took place in the year 2013 - deceased
was about 52 years of age and was
working on the post of Charge-man (F) in
Indian Oil Corporation, Mathura Refinery
& Rs 79876 per month was his salary -
Tribunal
did
not
grant
any
amount
towards future loss of income, granted
multiplier of 9 & granted only a sum of Rs.
5000 towards filial consortium - Held -
Multiplier is 11 for age group of 51 to 55
years - future loss to the dependents is
awarded at the rate of 20% of the income
of the deceased and compensation for non
pecuniary damages awarded Rs. 70,000
and towards the compensation for loss of
love and affection is awarded Rs. 30000
(Para 10)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr., 2009 Law Suit (SC)

2. Syed Basheer Ahamed & ors. Vs Mohd.
Jameel & anr, 2009 ACJ 690 (SC)

3. Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & anr. Vs R.M.K.
Veluswami & ors. [1962 SCR (1) 929]

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

5. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Urmila
Shukla & ors. 2021 ACJ page 2081

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

7. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax

8. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Vs U.O.I. & ors. order dated 27.1.2022

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

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

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

1. Heard Sri B.P. Verma, learned
counsel for the claimant-appellants and Sri
Arvind Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the New India Insurance Company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
award dated 07.08.2014 passed by the
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/
Additional District Judge, Court No.02,
Mathura
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No. 172 of 2013
(Smt. Pista Devi and others Vs. The New
India Insurance Company Ltd. and others.)
awarding a sum of Rs.52,51,911/- as
compensation with interest at the rate of
7%.

3. The accident having taken place at
the time of noon at about 1:45 P.M. on
04.03.2013 is not in dispute. The vehicle of
the opposite party No. 2 Bansal Transport
Company, Nayee Mandi, Bharatpur being
involved in the accident is not in dispute.
The issue of negligence decided by the
Tribunal has attained finality as the
opposite party No. 2, the owner of the
offending vehicle, has chosen not to
challenge the award of the Tribunal.
Hence, the only issue to be decided is the
quantum of compensation awarded.

4. The accident took place in the year
2013. The deceased was about 52 years of
age and was working on the post of
Charge-man (F) in the Marketing Division
of
Indian
Oil
Corporation,
Mathura
Refinery, Mathura and Rs. 79,876/- per
month was his salary. The learned Tribunal
has considered the income of the deceased
to be Rs.61500/- per month, deducted 1/4th
towards personal expenses of the deceased
as he was married person and in view of the
prevailing judgements, granted multiplier
of 9 taking into consideration the relevant
factor of age of the deceased and his
dependents. The Tribunal has granted
Rs.5,000/-
towards
funeral
expenses,
however Rs. 15,000/- was claimed in the
claim petition.

5. It is submitted by Shri Verma,
learned counsel for the appellants that the
Tribunal has not granted any amount
towards
future
loss
of
income;
the
multiplier granted by the Tribunal is not in
consonance with the decisions of the Apex
Court. According to him, the multiplier of
11 ought to have been granted by the
learned Tribunal as per the decision of the
Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs.
Delhi
Transport
Corporation
and
Another, 2009 Law Suit (SC), but
unfortunately in a very strange and casual
manner, the learned tribunal has lost sight
of this important aspect of the matter while
passing the award impugned in this appeal
for enhancement of the compensation
amount awarded to the dependents of the
deceased under different heads. He further
submits that the multiplier cannot be as per
the whims and fancies of the learned
Tribunal just because the deceased was a
married person and the loss of non
pecuniary damages to the family has to be
considered and awarded as per the settled
legal position more particularly the law
enunciated by the Apex Court in the case
of Syed Basheer Ahamed & Ors vs Mohd.
Jameel & Anr, 2009 ACJ 690 (SC), which
lays
down
the
law
in
respect
to
determination and assessment of the
dependency of the claimants on the
deceased persons. The question as to what
factors should be kept in view for
calculating pecuniary loss to a dependent
came up for consideration before a threeJudge Bench of this Court in Gobald
Motor Service Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R.M.K.
Veluswami and other [1962 SCR (1)
929], with reference to a case under the
Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, wherein, K.
Subba Rao, J. (as His Lordship then was)
speaking for the Bench observed thus:
6 All. Smt. Pista Devi & Ors. Vs. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
899

"In calculating the pecuniary loss
to the dependants many imponderables
enter into the calculation. Therefore, the
actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the
dependants may depend upon data which
cannot be ascertained accurately, but must
necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a
conjecture. Shortly, stated, the general
principle is that the pecuniary loss can be
ascertained only by balancing on the one
hand the loss to the claimants of the future
pecuniary benefit and on the other any
pecuniary advantage which from whatever
source comes to them by reason of the
death, that is, the balance of loss and gain
to a dependant by the death must be
ascertained."

6. Shri Verma submits that the
concept of multiplier of '9' adopted by the
learned
Tribunal
to
determine
the
compensation amount payable to the
claimants is not as per the ratio decendi of
the said judgment and it has to be 11 as per
the law laid down by the Apex Court. It is
further submitted that the Tribunal has
granted only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards
filial consortium which should be Rs.
40,000/-.

7. Thereafter, the learned counsel Shri
D.P. Verma for the appellants further
submits that the loss of future prospects
calculated by the learned tribunal is also
towards lower side. It cannot be decided as
per the thumb law of Sarla Verma (supra),
it should be decided as per the facts and
circumstances of the case particularly the
job, profession as well as position in a
office or the status of the deceased should
be taken into account. Here, in this case as
the deceased was a charge-man (F) in the
Indian Oil Corporation, it is submitted that
the Tribunal has again committed an error
in granting only Rs. 15,000/- under the
head of non pecuniary damages on the
wrong interpretation of the U.P. Motor
Vehicle Rules. It is also submitted by Shri
Verma that even if this Court holds that the
judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) would
apply and squarely cover the instant case,
the learned Tribunal ought not to have
applied it in piecemeal. In the alternative
he submits that if this Court takes a view
that the decision pronounced in the case of
National Insurance Co. Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 0 SC 1050
would apply, it has been clarified by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New
India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Urmila Shukla and others reported in
2021 ACJ page 2081 and therefore at least
20% should be granted as future loss and it
should be enhanced looking to the evidence
on record.

8. In response to the submission made by
the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned counsel Shri Arvind Verma appearing
for the Insurance Company submits that in
view of the judgment of this Hon'ble High
Court he has a right to raise oral cross
objections and as far as the future prospects is
concerned, it should be in consonance with the
judgment of the Sarla Verma (supra) and
Pranay Sethi (supra) and therefore the 20 per
cent could not have been granted as future
loss. It is further submitted that the deceased is
surviving by his wife and four children, two of
them are major and therefore the deduction of
1/4th amount assessed to be deducted from
the monthly income of
the deceased
considering it as his personal expenses should
also be either one half or one third. Further
argument is that the reasoning given by the
learned tribunal for adopting the lower
multiplier of '9' is just and proper.

9. This Court finds that according to the
learned counsel for Insurance Company the rate
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of interest should not be 10 per cent as
demanded by the learned counsel for the
appellants in the grounds of appeal. Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the facts and circumstances
of this case and the impugned award passed by
the learned Tribunal, the only area which we
would like to interfere with is multiplier and
non pecuniary damages and interest.

10. The learned counsel Shri Verma
appearing for the appellants submits that he
would be satisfied if the multiplier is applied of
11 in place of 9, future loss to the dependents is
awarded at the rate of 20% of the income of the
deceased and compensation for non pecuniary
damages awarded Rs. 70,000/- and towards the
compensation for loss of love and affection is
awarded Rs. 30,000/-.

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

12. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants is computed herein
below:-

i. Monthly Income: Rs.61,500/-

ii.
Percentage
towards
future
prospects : 20% i.e. Rs.12,300/-

iii. Less personal expenses of the
deceased :Rs.1,93,959 (1/4th)

iv. Monthly loss of dependency :
Rs.48,489/-

v.
Annual
loss
of
dependency:Rs.5,81,879/- (after tax deduction
of Rs. 1,10,482/-)

vi. Multiplier applicable : 11

vii. Total Loss of dependency:
Rs.52,36,911/-

viii. Compensation for loss of non
pecuniary damages: Rs.1,00,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
Rs.52,36,911/- + Rs.1,00,000/- ( under
head of non pecuniary damages) = Rs
53,36,911.

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. 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 respondent-Insurance
Company shall deposit the 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. Recently, the Gujrat High Court in
case
titled
the
Oriental
Insurance
6 All. Smt. Sonia Gupta & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
901
Company
Limited
Vs.
Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax ( TDS) ,
R/Special Civil Application No. 4800 of
2021 decided on 5.4.2022 held that interest
awarded by the Tribunal under Section 171
of Motor Vehicles Act is not taxable under
the Income Tax Act, 1961.

16. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company
Private Ltd. v. 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. As 20 years have
elapsed, the amount be deposited in the
Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized
Bank without F.D.R.

17. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagauri 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.

18.

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.

19. 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.

20. With the aforesaid observations
the appeal is allowed partly.

21. This Court is thankful to the
counsel for both sides for getting this
matter decided.
----------
(2022)06ILR A901
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 3509 of 2007

Smt. Sonia Gupta & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents