# Smt. Pratima Singh & Ors v. Rajendra Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 344
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-04
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 265 of 2011
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-pratima-singh-ors-v-rajendra-singh-ors-48119
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
difference between law relating to
contributory negligence and composite
negligence - composite negligence - legal
representatives
of
the
deceased
or
injured, as the case may be, are at liberty
to seek total compensation from the
owner of either of the vehicles or from the
owners of the both the vehicles because
liability is joint and several - extent of
negligence
of
joint
tortfeasors
is
immaterial for the satisfaction of the claim
of the claimants.(Para - 11,12,)

Claim petition filed before Tribunal - awarding
sum of Rs.29,98,950/- as compensation to the
claimants - interest @ 6% per annum - Tribunal
fixed 50% contributory negligence of driver of
car - 50% contributory negligence of driver of
truck - Tribunal held respondents jointly and
severely liable for making the payments of
compensation - no amount towards 'future loss
of income' - no amount granted under 'non -
pecuniary heads'.

HELD:-It is a case of composite negligence.
Tribunal rightly considered salary of the
deceased. Multiplier of 15 applied to arrive at
'loss of dependency'. Appellants shall get
Rs.15,000/- for 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/-
for 'funeral expenses'. Apart from it, wife of
deceased shall get Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of
consortium' and mother of the deceased and
both the daughters shall get Rs.40,000/- each,
as 'filial consortium'. Rate of interest to be 7.5%
instead of 7%. Total compensation payable to
appellants
and
daughters
of
deceased
Rs.85,74,000/- Judgment and award passed by
Tribunal modified.(Para - 17,20,21)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

x. Compensation after deduction of 20%
towards contributory negligence : Rs. 21,82,000Rs.4,36,400/- = Rs.17,45,600/-

14. 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."

15. Learned Tribunal has awarded rate of
interest as 7% per annum but we are fixing the
rate of interest as 7.5% in the light of the above
judgment.

16. Tribunal has committed grave error
while awarding the interest from the date of
filing the written statement by the Insurance
Company-respondent No.2. This is an absurd
finding, which cannot be appreciated at all. We
set aside this finding and direct to pay the interest
to the appellants from the date of filing of the
claim petition.

17. 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 Insurance Company shall deposit the
amount within a period of 8 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.

18. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt.
Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., [2007(2) GLH 291]
and this High Court in total amount of interest,
accrued
on
the
principal
amount
of
compensation is to be apportioned on financial
year to financial year basis and if the interest
payable to claimant for any financial year
exceeds Rs.50,000/-, insurance company/owner
is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount
under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as
provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does not
exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year,
registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the
claimants to withdraw the amount without
producing the certificate from the concerned
Income- Tax Authority. The aforesaid view has
been reiterated by this High Court in Review
Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From
Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others
Vs. Hari Singh and another) and in First
Appeal From Order No.2871 of 2016 (Tej
Kumari Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on
19.3.2021 while disbursing the amount.
----------
(2022)02ILR A344
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 265 of 2011

Smt. Pratima Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Singh & Ors. ...Respondents
2 All. Smt. Pratima Singh & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
345
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, Sri Chandra
Prakash Mishra, Sri Gyanendra Bahadur Rai, Sri
Hari Bhawan Pandey, Sri Vivek Saran, Sri S.D.
Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Kumar Mishra

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
difference between law relating to
contributory negligence and composite
negligence - composite negligence - legal
representatives
of
the
deceased
or
injured, as the case may be, are at liberty
to seek total compensation from the
owner of either of the vehicles or from the
owners of the both the vehicles because
liability is joint and several - extent of
negligence
of
joint
tortfeasors
is
immaterial for the satisfaction of the claim
of the claimants.(Para - 11,12,)

Claim petition filed before Tribunal - awarding
sum of Rs.29,98,950/- as compensation to the
claimants - interest @ 6% per annum - Tribunal
fixed 50% contributory negligence of driver of
car - 50% contributory negligence of driver of
truck - Tribunal held respondents jointly and
severely liable for making the payments of
compensation - no amount towards 'future loss
of income' - no amount granted under 'non -
pecuniary heads'.

HELD:-It is a case of composite negligence.
Tribunal rightly considered salary of the
deceased. Multiplier of 15 applied to arrive at
'loss of dependency'. Appellants shall get
Rs.15,000/- for 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/-
for 'funeral expenses'. Apart from it, wife of
deceased shall get Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of
consortium' and mother of the deceased and
both the daughters shall get Rs.40,000/- each,
as 'filial consortium'. Rate of interest to be 7.5%
instead of 7%. Total compensation payable to
appellants
and
daughters
of
deceased
Rs.85,74,000/- Judgment and award passed by
Tribunal modified.(Para - 17,20,21)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

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

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

3. A.V. Padma & ors. Vs R. Venugopal & ors.,
2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442

4. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi,
2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)

5. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr., 2009 ACJ 1298

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

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

8. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr. ,
First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001

9. Tej Kumari Sharma Vs Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Insurance Co. Ltd., First Appeal From
Order No.2871 of 2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the
claimants have challenged the judgment
and award dated 02.11.2010 passed by
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/
Additional District Judge, Varanasi (herein
after referred to as ''Tribunal') in M.A.C.P.
No.110
of
2008
awarding
sum
of
Rs.29,98,950/- as compensation to the
claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that
aforesaid claim petition was filed before
learned Tribunal with the averments that
the deceased Bharat Singh was husband of
appellant/claimant No.1, namely, Pratima
Singh, who died in road-accident at the age
of 38 years. The deceased was well-
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
educated Software Engineer and he had
served Indian Navy also. After retirement
from Navy, he was working in Pune
(Maharashtra) Based Geometry Software as
operational head. Regarding the factum of
accident, it is averred in the petition that on
28.4.2008, he was going from Varanasi to
his place of service in Pune by his Indica
Car bearing No.MH-12-CR-3962. At about
9:00 p.m., 4 km. away from Rewa (MP),
the Truck No.MBJ 2099 dashed the
aforesaid car, when the truck was being
reversed by its driver at a very high speed
without blinking the indicator-light and
horn. In this accident, deceased-Bharat
Singh sustained serious injuries due to
which he died during the treatment in
Sanjay Gandhi Hospital at Rewa (MP).

3. Heard Shri S.D.Ojha, learned
counsel for the appellants-claimants and
Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
for the respondent No.3-United India
Insurance Co.Ltd. Perused the record.

4. Before us, the accident is not in
dispute. In this case, learned Tribunal has
fixed 50% contributory negligence of the
driver of the car and 50% contributory
negligence of the driver of the truck.
Tribunal has made apportionment of the
claim between tortfeasors and only 50%
amount of the compensation to be paid by
the Insurance Company of the offending
truck, which is respondent No.3 and
awarded the same is vehemently objected
by the appellants and argued this point
along with quantum fixed by the Tribunal.

5. The driver and the owner of the
offending truck did not appear before the
learned Tribunal. The Insurance Companyrespondent No.3 filed its written statement.

6. On the point of negligence, learned
counsel for the appellants submitted that
learned
Tribunal
has
fixed
50%
contributory negligence of the driver of the
car and 50% contributory negligence of the
driver of the truck, but the deceased was
travelling in the car. He was not driving the
car at the time of accident. Therefore, as far
as the deceased is concerned, it is a case of
composite negligence and appellants are
entitled to recover the entire amount of
compensation from any of the tortfeasor,
but the learned Tribunal has allowed only
50% amount of compensation to be paid by
the Insurance Company of the Truck,
which is illegal.

7. Per contra, Shri Mishra, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance
Company, has submitted that since the
driver of the truck was only negligent to the
extent of 50%, therefore, the Insurance Co.
of the truck is liable to pay 50% of the
quantum
and
learned
Tribunal
has
committed no error in this regard and there
is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment. Hence, it does not call for any
interference by this Court.

8. The term negligence means failure to
exercise care towards others which a 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.
2 All. Smt. Pratima Singh & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
347

9. 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
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. Clause6 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 (section 110A
and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not
merely
procedural
provisions.
They
substantively affect the rights of the parties.
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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." (Emphasis added )

10. 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
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."

11. Perusal of the impugned judgment
shows that learned Tribunal has held that
respondents shall be liable jointly and
severely for making the payments of
compensation, but contributory negligence
of drivers of car and truck is fixed to the
extent of 50-50% and the Insurance
Company of the car is not made party in the
petition, hence Insurance Company of the
truck would be liable to pay only 50%
amount of compensation. This finding of
learned Tribunal is erroneous. Learned
Tribunal has not understood the law
relating to composite negligence. As far as
the compensation regarding the death of the
deceased is concerned, it is not a case of
contributory negligence, but it is a case of
composite negligence. There is difference
2 All. Smt. Pratima Singh & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
349
between the law relating to contributory
negligence and composite negligence.

12. In case of composite negligence,
legal representatives of the deceased or
injured, as the case may be, are at liberty to
seek total compensation from the owner of
either of the vehicles or from the owners of
the both the vehicles because liability is
joint and several. As held by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Khenyei (supra), the extent of
negligence of joint tortfeasors is immaterial
for the satisfaction of the claim of the
claimants. However, in case, the joint
tortfeasors are before the Court, it may
determine the extent of their liability for the
purpose of adjusting inter se equities
between them. But, in the case in hand, the
owner and the Insurance Company of the
car involved in accident were not before the
Tribunal, hence it was not open for the
Tribunal to make apportionment of the
compensation between the tortfeasors.

13. It is not necessary to join both the
tortfeasors in the petition because claimants
absolute right in asking for the compensation
from any of the joint tortfeasors and if it is so,
the total amount of compensation shall be
paid by the joint tortfeasor, who has made
party to the petition. Claimants have the right
to recover entire amount from one tortfeasor,
hence learned Tribunal has committed grave
error
by
making
apportionment
of
compensation between the tortfeasors and
limiting the liability of Insurance Company
of the truck to the extent of 50% only. Hence,
total amount of compensation shall be paid to
the claimants/appellants by respondent No.3Insurance Company of the offending truck,
but since the owner and the Insurance
Company of the car are not before us,
respondent No.3 may recover 50% of the
amount
of
compensation
from
the
owner/Insurance Company of the car.

14. There is one more important
aspect in this appeal, which is neither
pointed out nor argued by any of the
parties, but we threadbare analyzed the
evidence on record and by perusing the
record as well, we find that the deceasedBharat Singh is survived by two daughters
also, namely, Kumari Akshita Singh and
Kumari Ayushi aged about 11 years and 7
years respectively as shown in column
No.7 of the petition. However, they are not
shown in the array of the parties, but even
then when it was on record before the
Tribunal that the deceased is survived by
two daughters also, the Tribunal was dutybound to settle the share of daughters'
compensation
also,
but
the
Tribunal
overlooked this legal and factual position.
Hence, since the daughters of the deceased
are on record, we direct that the daughters
of the deceased, as shown in column No.7
of the petition, should be paid reasonable
amount out of total amount awarded as
compensation, which may be required for
their higher education or marriage etc.
because they would have become major by
now. Therefore, as per the law laid down
by Hon'ble Apex Court in A.V. Padma and
others vs. R. Venugopal and others, 2012
(1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment
is not passed as the claimants are neither
illiterate nor rustic villagers and moreover
more than 13 years have been elapsed when
the accident in question had taken place.
Now the only issue to be decided is the
quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the deceased was in
service and his salary was Rs.1,10,000/- per
month, but the Tribunal has assessed the
salary as only Rs.46,800/-. It is also
submitted that no amount towards 'future
loss of income' is considered by the learned
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tribunal and the amount granted under
'non-pecuniary heads' is also at a lowerside.

16. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Insurance Company
objected
and
submitted
that
learned
Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.46,800/-
because amount under heads of basic-pay
and HRA are not admissible.

17. Perusal of records shows that the
appellants have filed the appointment
letter of the deceased, which is annexed
with the salary break-up to be paid. This
letter is dated 19.4.2007, which shows that
basic-pay of the deceased was Rs.31,200/-
and HRA was Rs.15,600/-. Apart from
these,
special
allowances,
transport
allowances are mentioned, which are not
payable. Therefore, we are of the opinion
that
learned
Tribunal
has
rightly
considered the salary of the deceased at
Rs.31,200/- + Rs.15,600/- = Rs.46,800/-,
which we do not disturb. Learned Tribunal
has not awarded any sum towards 'loss of
future income'. The deceased was salaried
person and admittedly his age was below
40 years, therefore, as per the judgment of
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay
Sethi, 2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC), 50% of the
income shall be added towards 'future
prospects. Wife, mother and two daughters
of the deceased were dependent on the
deceased. Both the daughters were minor
at the time of accident, therefore, they
shall be treated as one unit. Hence,
keeping
in
view
the
number
of
dependents, 1/3 of the income shall be
deducted for personal expenses of the
deceased. It is admitted in the petition that
the age of the deceased was 38 years,
therefore, as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another, 2009 ACJ 1298, multiplier
of 15 shall be applied to arrive at 'loss of
dependency'.
Appellants
shall
get
Rs.15,000/- for 'loss of estate' and
Rs.15,000/- for 'funeral expenses'. Apart
from it, the wife of deceased shall get
Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium'
and mother of the deceased and both the
daughters ( Kumari Akshita Singh and
Kumari Ayushi) shall get Rs.40,000/-
each, as 'filial consortium'.

18. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants and daughters of
the deceased as per the discussion above is
recomputed herein below:

i. Monthly Income : Rs.46,800/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: 50%, namely, Rs.23,400/-

iii. Total income : Rs.46,800/- +
Rs.23,400/- = Rs.70,200/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 :
Rs.70,200/- - Rs.23,400/- = Rs.46,800/-

v. Annual income : Rs.46,800 x 12 =
Rs.5,61,600/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 15

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.5,61,600
x 15 = Rs.84,24,000/-

viii. Amount under non-pecuniary
heads : Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- +
Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/-
=Rs. 1,50,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.
84,24,000/-
+
Rs.1,50,000/-
=
Rs.
85,74,000/-

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:
2 All. Smt. Geeta Vishnoi & Ors. Vs. M/s Kanpur Shifter Private Ltd. & Anr.
351

"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. Learned Tribunal has awarded
rate of interest as 7% per annum but we are
fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the
light of the above judgment.

21. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid
extent. United India Insurance Company
Limited-respondent No.3 shall deposit the
entire amount within a period of 12 weeks
from today with interest @ 7.5% per
annum 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.

22. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
[2007(2) GLH 291] and this High Court in
total amount of interest, accrued on the
principal amount of compensation is to be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis and if the interest payable to
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance
company/owner
is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount
under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source'
as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest
does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any
financial year, registry of this Tribunal is
directed to allow the claimants to withdraw
the
amount
without
producing
the
certificate from the concerned Income- Tax
Authority. The aforesaid view has been
reiterated by this High Court in Review
Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna
and others Vs. Hari Singh and another)
and in First Appeal From Order No.2871 of
2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola
Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co.
Ltd.)
decided
on
19.3.2021
while
disbursing the amount.
----------
(2022)02ILR A351
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1401 of 2009
&
First Appeal From Order No. 1559 of 2009

Smt. Geeta Vishnoi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
M/s Kanpur Shifter Private Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, Sri Shreesh
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rahul Sahai

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Principles
of
res
ipsa
loquiter
-
contributory negligence - Negligence is
not always a question of direct evidence -