# Smt. Pooja Tiwari & Ors v. Union Of India & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 878
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-18
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1663 of 2016
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-pooja-tiwari-ors-v-union-of-india-anr-48668
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section -166- Appeal - compensation -
Contributory
negligence
-
offending
Truck came and dashed with scooter of
deceased causing grievous injuries and
death - truck being bigger vehicle, the
driver of truck has to be more cautious -
Principle
of
Res
ipsa
loquitur
-
contributory negligence to the extent of
25% attributed to the deceased.(Para
15)
(B) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section 166, - U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998,
Rules
220
-
Compensation
-
Quantum - Multiplier of 16 should be
applied instead of 17 as deceased was in
age bracket of 31 - 35 as well as per law
lay down in Sarla Verma'a & Pranay Sethi'
case 50% of income ought to be added
towards
future
loss
of
income
-
Compensation computed and awarded
accordingly. (Para 16, 17, 20)

Appeal is partly allowed.(E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be
applied looking to the facts of each case.

25. T he 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
19 years have elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.
----------
(2022)06ILR A878
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1663 of 2016

Smt. Pooja Tiwari & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Vidya Kant Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Smt. Raj Kumari Devi

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section -166- Appeal - compensation -
Contributory
negligence
-
offending
Truck came and dashed with scooter of
deceased causing grievous injuries and
death - truck being bigger vehicle, the
driver of truck has to be more cautious -
Principle
of
Res
ipsa
loquitur
-
contributory negligence to the extent of
25% attributed to the deceased.(Para
15)
(B) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section 166, - U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998,
Rules
220
-
Compensation
-
Quantum - Multiplier of 16 should be
applied instead of 17 as deceased was in
age bracket of 31 - 35 as well as per law
lay down in Sarla Verma'a & Pranay Sethi'
case 50% of income ought to be added
towards
future
loss
of
income
-
Compensation computed and awarded
accordingly. (Para 16, 17, 20)

Appeal is partly allowed.(E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Dinesh J Vs National Insurance Comp. Ltd. &
ors., 2018 vol. 1 TAC 337 (SC)

2. National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors., 2017 vol. 0 Supreme (SC) 105

3. Pawan Kumar & anr. Vs M/S Harkishan Dass
Mohan Lal & ors. (Decided on 29.01.2014)

4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Smt. Renu Singh & ors. (FAFO No. 1818/2012
Decided on Dt. 19.07.2016)

5. Archit Saini & anr. Vs Oriental Insurance
Comp. Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 1143

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

7. Vimal Kanwar & ors. v. Kishore Dan & ors.,
2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (SC)

8. Sarla Verma & ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr., 2009 LawSuit (SC)

9. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (Supreme court)

10. A. V. Padma Vs Venugopal (2012 vol. 1 GLH
SC 442)

11. Smt. Hansa Gauri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. (2007 vol. 2 GLH 291)

12. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), (R/Special
6 All. Smt. Pooja Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
879
Civil Application No. 4800 of 2021, Decided on
05.04.2022

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

1. Heard Sri Vidya Kant Shukla for
the appellants and Ms. Raj Kumari Devi for
the respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 31.03.2016 passed by Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, Court No.17, Kanpur Nagar
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
M.A.C.P. No. 624 of 2007 awarding a sum
of Rs. 9,48,023/- with interest at the rate of
7% as compensation.

3. Brief facts are that on the fateful
date i.e. 8.8.2006 at about 9:40 a.m. the
deceased was going to join his duties by
Scooter,
bearing
no.UP78Z-4094,
and
when he reached near Golghar traffic point,
Bahad, district Abardin, Andaman (Port
Blair), a Army Truck, bearing no.03-D152105-M came and dashed with the
scooter of the deceased which caused
grievous
injuries
causing
death.
He
succumbed to injuries on the very same day
in the hospital.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The
claimants have challenged the award on
two counts namely negligence and quantum
of compensation.

5. Leaned Counsel for the appellant
has relied on the decisions in Dinesh
Kumar J. @ Dinesh J Vs. National
Insurance Company Limited and others,
2018 (1) TAC 337 (SC) and decision of
this Court in Smt. Pooja Tiwari and
others Vs. Union of India and another,
First Appeal From Order No.1663 of
2016, decided on 28.4.2022, so as to
contend that the deceased was not negligent
and
the
quantum
requires
upward
modification. It is submitted that the driver
of the truck was solely negligent.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the Tribunal has not
granted any amount towards future loss of
income. It is further submitted that 50%
should be added as future loss of income of
the deceased in view of the decision in
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 105 as the deceased was
below 40 years and was in permanent job.
It is further submitted that the amount
granted under non-pecuniary head is on the
lower side and is required to be enhanced.
It is lastly submitted that interest should be
as per the repo rate prevailing.

7. As against this, learned counsel for
the respondent submits that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper and does not call for any
interference of the Court.

8. The twin issues posed for our
consideration are holding deceased to be
co-author of the accident to the extent of
35% and compensation awarded more
particularly non-grant of future loss of
income.

9. The concept of contributory
negligence has been time and again
evolved, decided and discussed by the
courts.

10. The term negligence means failure
to exercise care towards others which a
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reasonable and prudent person would in a
circumstance or taking action which such a
reasonable person would not. Negligence
can be both intentional or accidental which
is normally accidental. More particularly, it
connotes reckless driving and the injured
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.

11. The term 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. The Apex Court in Pawan Kumar
& Anr vs M/S Harkishan Dass Mohan
Lal & Ors decided on 29 January, 2014
has held as follows:

"7. Where the plaintiff/claimant
himself is found to be a party to the
negligence the question of joint and several
liability cannot arise and the plaintiff's
claim to the extent of his own negligence,
as may be quantified, will have to be
severed. In such a situation the plaintiff can
only be held entitled to such part of
damages/compensation
that
is
not
attributable to his own negligence. The
above principle has been explained in T.O.
Anthony (supra) followed in K. Hemlatha
& Ors. (supra). Paras 6 and 7 of T.O.
Anthony (supra) which are relevant may be
extracted hereinbelow:

"6.
"Composite
negligence"
refers to the negligence on the part of two
or more persons. Where a person is injured
as a result of negligence on the part of two
or more wrongdoers, it is said that the
person was injured on account of the
composite negligence of those wrongdoers.
In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly
and severally liable to the injured for
payment of the entire damages and the
injured
person
has
the
choice
of
proceeding against all or any of them. In
such a case, the injured need not establish
the extent of responsibility of each
wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary
for the court to determine the extent of
liability of each wrongdoer separately. On
the other hand where a person suffers
injury, partly due to the negligence on the
part of another person or persons, and
partly as a result of his own negligence,
then the negligence on the part of the
injured which contributed to the accident is
referred to as his contributory negligence.
Where the injured is guilty of some
negligence, his claim for damages is not
defeated
merely
by
reason
of
the
negligence on his part but the damages
recoverable by him in respect of the
injuries stand reduced in proportion to his
contributory negligence.

7. Therefore, when two vehicles
are involved in an accident, and one of the
drivers claims compensation from the other
driver alleging negligence, and the other
driver denies negligence or claims that the
injured claimant himself was negligent,
then it becomes necessary to consider
whether the injured claimant was negligent
and if so, whether he was solely or partly
responsible for the accident and the extent
of
his
responsibility,
that
is,
his
contributory negligence. Therefore where
the injured is himself partly liable, the
principle of "composite negligence" will
not apply nor can there be an automatic
inference that the negligence was 50:50 as
has been assumed in this case. The
Tribunal ought to have examined the extent
of contributory negligence of the appellant
6 All. Smt. Pooja Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
881
and thereby avoided confusion between
composite negligence and contributory
negligence. The High Court has failed to
correct the said error."

12. 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 which has
held as under:

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

13. The respondent has failed to prove
that accident occurred due to carrying of
more persons as pillion rider. In absence of
such a finding, the respondents having not
proved factum of negligent on the part of
the scooterist, cannot be benefitted. The
negligent act must contribute to the
accident having taken place. The Apex
Court recently has considered the principles
of negligence in case of Archit Saini and
another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, AIR 2018 SC 1143.

14. The Apex Court in Khenyei Vs.
New India Assurance Company Limited &
Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469 has held as
under:

4. It is a case of composite
negligence where injuries have been
caused to the claimants by combined
wrongful act of joint tort feasors. In a case
of accident caused by negligence of joint
tort feasors, all the persons who aid or
counsel or direct or join in committal of a
wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the
liability is always joint and several. The
extent of negligence of joint tort feasors in
such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of
the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need
not be determined by the by the court.
However, in case all the joint tort feasors
are before the court, it may determine the
extent of their liability for the purpose of
adjusting inter-se equities between them at
appropriate stage. The liability of each and
every joint tort feasor vis a vis to
plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it
is joint and several liability. In the case of
6 All. Smt. Pooja Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
883
composite negligence, apportionment of
compensation between tort feasors for
making payment to the plaintiff is not
permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the
right to recover the entire amount from the
easiest targets/solvent defendant.

14. There is a difference between
contributory and composite negligence. In
the case of contributory negligence, a
person who has himself contributed to the
extent cannot claim compensation for the
injuries sustained by him in the accident to
the extent of his own negligence;whereas in
the case of composite negligence, a person
who has suffered has not contributed to the
accident but the outcome of combination of
negligence of two or more other persons.
This Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan
& Ors. [2008 (3) SCC 748] has held that in
case of contributory negligence, injured
need
not
establish
the
extent
of
responsibility
of
each
wrong
doer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrong doer separately. It is only in the case
of contributory negligence that the injured
himself has contributed by his negligence
in the accident. Extent of his negligence is
required to be determined as damages
recoverable by him in respect of the
injuries have to be reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence. The relevant
portion is extracted hereunder :

"6. 'Composite negligence' refers to
the negligence on the part of two or more
persons. Where a person is injured as a result
of negligence on the part of two or more
wrong doers, it is said that the person was
injured
on
account
of
the
composite
negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a
case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally
liable to the injured for payment of the entire
damages and the injured person has the
choice of proceeding against all or any of
them. In such a case, the injured need not
establish the extent of responsibility of each
wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for
the court to determine the extent of liability of
each wrong-doer separately. On the other
hand where a person suffers injury, partly due
to the negligence on the part of another person
or persons, and partly as a result of his own
negligence, then the negligence of the part of
the injured which contributed to the accident
is referred to as his contributory negligence.
Where the injured is guilty of some negligence,
his claim for damages is not defeated merely
by reason of the negligence on his part but the
damages recoverable by him in respect of the
injuries stands reduced in proportion to his
contributory negligence.

7. Therefore, when two vehicles are
involved in an accident, and one of the drivers
claims compensation from the other driver
alleging negligence, and the other driver
denies negligence or claims that the injured
claimant himself was negligent, then it
becomes necessary to consider whether the
injured claimant was negligent and if so,
whether he was solely or partly responsible for
the
accident
and
the
extent
of
his
responsibility,
that
is
his
contributory
negligence. Therefore where the injured is
himself partly liable, the principle of
'composite negligence' will not apply nor can
there be an automatic inference that the
negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in
this case. The Tribunal ought to have
examined the extent of contributory negligence
of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion
between
composite
negligence
and
contributory negligence. The High Court has
failed to correct the said error."

18.
This
Court
in
Challa
Bharathamma &Nanjappan (supra) has
dealt with the breach of policy conditions
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the owner when the insurer was asked to
pay the compensation fixed by the tribunal
and the right to recover the same was given
to the insurer in the executing court
concerned if the dispute between the
insurer and the owner was the subjectmatter of determination for the tribunal
and the issue has been decided in favour of
the insured. The same analogy can be
applied to the instant cases as the liability
of the joint tort feasor is joint and several.
In the instant case, there is determination
of inter se liability of composite negligence
to the extent of negligence of 2/3rd and
1/3rd of respective drivers. Thus, the
vehicle - trailor-truck which was not
insured with the insurer, was negligent to
the extent of 2/3rd. It would be open to the
insurer being insurer of the bus after
making payment to claimant to recover
from the owner of the trailor-truck the
amount to the aforesaid extent in the
execution proceedings. Had there been no
determination of the inter se liability for
want of evidence or other joint tort feasor
had not been impleaded, it was not open to
settle such a dispute and to recover the
amount in execution proceedings but the
remedy would be to file another suit or
appropriate proceedings in accordance
with law.

What emerges from the aforesaid
discussion is as follows :

(i) In the case of composite
negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to
sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors
and to recover the entire compensation as
liability of joint tort feasors is joint and
several.

(ii) In the case of composite
negligence, apportionment of compensation
between two tort feasors vis a vis the
plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can
recover at his option whole damages from
any of them.

(iii) In case all the joint tort feasors
have been impleaded and evidence is
sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to
determine inter se extent of composite
negligence
of
the
drivers.
However,
determination of the extent of negligence
between the joint tort feasors is only for the
purpose of their inter se liability so that one
may recover the sum from the other after
making
whole
of
payment
to
the
plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied
the liability of the other. In case both of them
have been impleaded and the apportionment/
extent
of
their
negligence
has
been
determined by the court/tribunal, in main
case one joint tort feasor can recover the
amount from the other in the execution
proceedings.

(iv) It would not be appropriate for
the court/tribunal to determine the extent of
composite negligence of the drivers of two
vehicles in the absence of impleadment of
other joint tort feasors. In such a case,
impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in
case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort
feasor in independent proceedings after
passing of the decree or award."

15. The deceased sustained injuri0es on
his head as helmet was not used by him. He
came from behind and tried to overtake the
truck. PW1 and PW2's version is contradicted
by driver of the truck, who was also an Army
man. The evidence goes to show that it was a
case of contributory negligence but, truck being
bigger vehicle, the driver of the truck has to be
more cautious and, therefore, we hold the
deceased negligent to the tune of 25%.

16. It is not in dispute that the
deceased was an employee in the Indian
6 All. Smt. Pooja Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
885
Air Force and was earning Rs.10,748/- per
month. This fact has been held by the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the
judgment in Vimal Kanwar and others v.
Kishore Dan and others, 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6
(SC) holding that certain amounts cannot
be deducted. We also confirm the same.
However, non applicability of the judgment
in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another, 2009
LawSuit (SC) for addition of 50% towards
future loss of income is an error apparent
on the face of record. Non application of
Rules 220 of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as
''Rules') by the Tribunal is also bad. The
finding of the Tribunal that Rules came into
force after 2010 and the accident occurred
on 8.8.2006 is a misreading of the said
Rules by the Tribunal. This finding of the
Tribunal will have to be upturned and,
therefore, we grant addition of 50%
towards future loss of income as both Rules
as well as the decision in Sarla Verma
(Supra) will apply. The deduction of 1/3rd
as granted by the Tribunal is not disturbed.
However, we are in agreement with the
learned Counsel for the respondents that
the multiplier of 16 should be applied
instead of 17 as the deceased was in the age
bracket of 31 - 35. The Tribunal has
granted
only
Rs.6,000/-
under
non
pecuniary heads which is also bad and
against
the
settled
legal
principle.
Therefore, as far as amount under nonpecuniary
head
are
concerned,
the
claimants would be entitled to Rs. 70,000 +
10% rise in every three years in view of the
decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). We also
award Rs.50,000/- each to the minor
children, who have lost their father at very
prime age. Hence, the compensation
payable to the appellants in view of the
decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi
(Supra) is computed herein below:

i. Income Rs.10,748/- per month

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 50% namely Rs.5,374/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 10,748 +
5,374 = Rs. 16,122/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/3rd : Rs. 10,748/-

v. Annual income : Rs.10,748 x
12 = Rs.1,28,976/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 16

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.1,28,976 x 16 = Rs. 20,63,616/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : Rs.1,00,000/- (rounded up) +
Rs.50,000/-
+
Rs.50,000/-
(total
Rs.2,00,000/-)

ix.
Compensation
:
Rs.
22,63,616/-

x. Amount payable to claimants
after deduction of 25% negligence is Rs.
16,97,712/-.

17. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, the interest 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
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

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

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. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansaguri 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. The said
decision has also been reiterated by High
Court of Gujarat in R/Special Civil
Application
No.4800
of
2021
(The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)
decided on 5.4.2022.

21. 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
shall deposit the amount with interest at the
rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the amount is deposited
within a period of 12 weeks from today.
The amount already deposited be deducted
from the amount to be deposited.

22.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein.

23. This Court is thankful to both the
counsels to see that this very old matter is
disposed of.
----------
(2022)06ILR A886
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1751 of 2017

Smt. Shabnam Begum & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Surendra Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents