# Smt. Rashmi Jain & Anr v. Smt. Seema Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 4 ILRA 54
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-04-13
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rashmi-jain-anr-v-smt-seema-devi-ors-47025
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section 41(2)-disbursements needs fresh
guidelines- the guidelines in Susamma
4 All. Smt. Rashmi Jain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Seema Devi & Ors.
55
Thomas are being blindly followed, cause
more trouble these days to the claimants as
the tribunals are overburdened with the
matter for each time if they require some
money, they have to move tribunal-the
parties for their money have to come court
particularly to High Court-claimaints can
take care of their money-rigid stand now be
given way- people have bank accounts even
in village, therefore, what is the purpose of
keeping money in fixed deposits in banks
where a person who has suffered injuries or
has lost his kith and kin, is not able to see
the color of compensation-respondents shall
jointly and severally liable to pay additional
amount.(Para 1 to 24)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. At this stage of consideration of
an application for discharge, only probative
value of the material has to be gone into
and the Court is not expected to go deep
into the matter. The scope of consideration
by the Court would be as to whether there
is ground for presuming that the offence
has been committed and not whether a
ground for convicting the accused has been
made out.

19. In the case at hand, the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate while considering
the application filed under Section 245 (2)
Cr.P.C. has duly taken note of the evidence
recorded in support of the prosecution
under Section 244 to record a conclusion
with regard to the sufficiency of material
for framing of charge taking into note that
at this stage only a prima facie case is
required to be seen. The Magistrate has
held that on the basis of the material on
record it cannot be said that no case is
made
out
against
the
accused
and
accordingly, has proceeded to reject the
application seeking discharge.

20. The revisional court has duly
taken note of the fact that the Magistrate
upon duly looking into the material on
record has come to the conclusion that
there is sufficient material to proceed for
framing of charge and has rejected the
discharge application for the reason that
only a prima facie case was required to be
seen at that stage. Taking into consideration
the aforesaid, the Additional Sessions
Judge exercising revisional powers has held
that there is no material irregularity or
jurisdictional error in the order passed by
the Magistrate and accordingly has rejected
the revision.

21 . Counsel for the petitioner has not
been able to point out any material error,
irregularity or perversity in the orders
passed by the courts below so as to warrant
interference.

22. The contention sought to be put
forward that the petitioners have been falsely
implicated or that on the basis of the evidence
on record no offence is made out against them,
cannot be considered at this stage of the
proceedings where only the test of a prima facie
has to be applied to consider the evidence with
a view as to whether the evidence, if unrebutted,
would result in conviction.

23. For the reasons aforestated, this Court
is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction in the matter.

24. The petition stands accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2021)04ILR A54
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2021

BEFORE

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

FAFO No.- 2905 of 2014

Smt. Rashmi Jain & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Seema Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Vidya Kant Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mansoor Ahmad, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra,
Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section 41(2)-disbursements needs fresh
guidelines- the guidelines in Susamma
4 All. Smt. Rashmi Jain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Seema Devi & Ors.
55
Thomas are being blindly followed, cause
more trouble these days to the claimants as
the tribunals are overburdened with the
matter for each time if they require some
money, they have to move tribunal-the
parties for their money have to come court
particularly to High Court-claimaints can
take care of their money-rigid stand now be
given way- people have bank accounts even
in village, therefore, what is the purpose of
keeping money in fixed deposits in banks
where a person who has suffered injuries or
has lost his kith and kin, is not able to see
the color of compensation-respondents shall
jointly and severally liable to pay additional
amount.(Para 1 to 24)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:-

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

2.
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.
Vs
Sudhakaran K.V. & ors. ,( 2008) AIR SC 2729

3. Amrit Bhanushali Vs N.I.C., (2012) 3 ACCD 1133 SC

4. New India Assurn. Co.Ltd. Vs Smt Shanti
Pathak & ors.( 2007) 4 TAC 17 SC

5. Shakti Devi Vs New India Assurn. Co.Ltd. &
anr. (2011) 1 TAC 4

6. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Paranay Sethi
& ors.,(2017) 0 SC 1050

7. Munna Lal Jain & anr. Vs Vipin Kumar Sharma
& ors. (2015) 6 SCALE

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

9. A.V. Padma & ors. Vs R. Venugopal, (2012) 3
SCC 378

10. G.M., Kerala St. Rd. Trans. Corpn.,
Trivandrum Vs Susamma Thomas & ors.,
(1994) AIR SC 1631
11. Zeemal Bano & ors. Vs Insurance Co.
(2020) TAC(2) 118

12. Smt. Sudesna & ors Vs. Hari Singh & anr,
F.A.F.O. No 23 of 2001

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. This appeal has been preferred
against the Judgment and award dated
30.7.2014 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Kanpur
Nagar
(hereinafter referred to as ''the MACT') in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 252 of
2011 filed by Smt. Rashmi Jain and another
for enhancement of the quantum of
compensation.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that deceased with others was
travelling in Spark Car bearing registration
No. HR 01 AA 3660. Kumari Malini Jain
(deceased) along with Rohit, his wife
Shivani and son Shubham was going to
Nazibabad from Delhi on 2.10.2010 when
on the way, at about 10 a.m., driver of car
bearing registration No. U.P. 20 W 7481
driving his vehicle rashly and negligently
dashed with their car from the front as a
result of which all the persons received
severe injuries. All were rushed to Puja
Hospital Nazibabad where they were told
to get them treated in a better equipped
hospital. The patients were taken to Meerut
Hospital. Malini Jain succumbed to injuries
on the way to Meerut. In the accident,
Rohit sustained fracture in right leg,
Shivani sustained fracture in left leg and all
the three received injuries on other parts of
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the body too. Deceased was an intelligent
and hale and hearty girl, who was posted as
Assistant Manager and used to earn
Rs.30,000/- per mensem. She had obtained
degree of M.B.A. from M.S.W. and X.L.R.
I., Jamshedpur. The claimants filed claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.92,30,000/-
as compensation from all the respondents.

4. The Tribunal heard the parties and,
vide Judgment and award dated 30.7.2014,
awarded a sum of Rs.9,78,500/- along with
7 per cent simple rate of interest from the
date of presentation of claim petition till the
date of last payment of awarded amount.

5. The appellants are parents of the
deceased Malini Jain, who was 35 years of
age when she was travelling in the car driven
by her brother and met with an accident with
the car owned by respondent No. 1. The
fateful accident occurred on 2nd of October,
2010. Issues, which are not in dispute, are
that the accident took place between two
vehicles and negligence of both the drivers
was decided by the Tribunal to be 50% each.
It is an admitted position of fact that neither
the deceased contributed to the accident
which took place nor she was a tort feasor. It
is not in dispute that the vehicle owners have
not challenged the award and decree till date.
The Insurance companies have also not
challenged the decree and award but
respondent No. 4, namely, The New India
Assurance Company Ltd., which has been
exonerated by the Tribunal, has contended
that as appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
VehiclesAct 1988 is continuation of original
proceedings, they have right to defend and
contend that there was also breach of
condition of insurance contract by owner and
driver

6. The factual datas as further culled
out and important for our purposes are that
the deceased was a divorcee. She was in the
age bracket of 31-35 years when the
accident occurred as narrated above i.e., on
2nd of October, 2010. The driver of other
vehicle died in the accident. The driver of
the vehicle in which the deceased was
travelling suffered severe injuries, who was
real brother of deceased. Other inmates of
the vehicle were also injured. The parents
at the time of accident in the year 2010
were aged 52 and 54 years respectively.
The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.
92,30,000/- as the deceased was Assistant
Manager and earning Rs. 30,000/- per
month. She obtained her M.B.A. degree
from M.S.W. and X.L.R. I., Jamshedpur.

7. The accident having occurred is not
in dispute. On notice being served, the
respondents appeared and filed their reply
before the Tribunal. The claimants also
filed documentary evidence. Respondent
No. 2- M/s Chola Mandalam M.S. General
Insurance Company, as usual, filed reply
denying that the vehicle was insured with
them. They contended that the income of
the deceased was not proved. They
contended that the F.I.R. was a delayed
F.I.R. and they were not liable to pay any
amount though the copy of policy being
filed. They contended that the vehicle
bearing Registration No. U.P. 20 W 7481
was not insured with them and that U.P. 20
W 7481 was wrongly made a party. In the
alternative, they contended that the petition
was not filed as per the pro forma and there
is
breach
of
policy
conditions.
Unfortunately,
though
the
accident
occurred in 2010 much after 1988 when the
Motor Vehicles Act came into force, they
have relied on section 60 of the Insurance
Act, 1938 and contended that the Insurance
Company have right to defend themselves
and that the driver of the other vehicle did
not have proper driving licence and
4 All. Smt. Rashmi Jain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Seema Devi & Ors.
57
whether any medical policy or personal
accident policy was taken or not should
also be declared. Respondent No. 3-
Shivani Bahel has accepted averments
made in paragraphs 1and 5 of the claim
petition but has denied the correctness of
averments made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of
the claim petition. It is submitted that the
vehcile was insured with the respondent
No. 4 but the sole negligence was that of
the driver of the U.P.20 W 7481 as he
drove the vehicle rashly and negligently
and his death shows that he was totally
negligent. Her husband , i.e., driver Rohit
Jain also were injured and if there is any
liability it would be that of the Insurance
Company.

8. Respondent No. 4 Insurance
Company has denied their liability and
submitted that the vehicle was not driven as
per the policy conditions and that there was
breach of section 41(2) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.

9. The Tribunal framed five issues.
Issue nos. 1 and 4 are inter-connected
issues regarding negligence of drivers of
U.P. 20 W 7481 and HR 1 AA 3660 in
which the deceased was travelling with her
family members. We are not concerned
with the correctness of the said issues as
the appellants have not challenged the issue
of negligence decided by the Tribunal and,
therefore, we also do not delve into as to
the factum of either negligence. The drivers
were held to be equally neglegent namely
50% each.

10.

Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants-claimants has heavily relied on
the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance
Company Ltd and others, 2015 LawSuit
(SC) 469 so as to contend that no amount
could be deducted from compensation to
which the claimants are entitled as qua the
deceased it was a case of composite
negligence
and
not
of
contributory
negligence.
Learned
counsel
for
the
opposite party No. 4 has heavily relied on
Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in
the case of Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Sudhakaran K. V. and others,
A.I.R. 2008 Supreme Court 2729 to
contend that the deceased was not covered
in the policy.

11. The appellants-claimants have
challenged the award and decree on several
counts. One that though the driver of the
vehicle in which the deceased was
travelling had contributed to the accident
having taken place, the Tribunal could not
have deducted 50% from the amount
payable to the parents of the deceased as
neither the deceased had contributed to the
accident nor she was the driver. She was an
occupant of the vehicle which was insured
with the respondent No. 4. Secondly, the
claimants have also challenged non-grant
of any amount under the head of future loss
of income as, according to the Tribunal, the
deceased was in permanent employment
and, as such, the income, at the time of her
death, had to be added by 50% which had
to be considered as her future loss of
income also. As far as the question of
furture loss of income is concerned, the
deceased may not be in Government
employment, the decision of the Apex
Court and that also in Sarla Varma does not
specify whether it should be a government
job or not. Thirdly multiplier has wrongly
been applied based on the age of the
parents which is against the Judgment of
the Apex Court rendered in the case of
Amrit Bhanushali Vs. N.I.C., 2012 (3)
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ACCD 1133 (SC). The Tribunal has
wrongly relied on the Judgments of Apex
Court rendered in the case of New India
Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt.
Shanti Pathak and others (Three Judges
Bench), 2007 (4) TAC 17 (SC) and
Shakti Devi Vs. New India Assurance
Company Ltd and another, 2011 (1)
TAC 4 where multiplier is granted on basis
of claimants and not deceased.

12. The claimants have further
contended that the income of the deceased
was rightly assessed to be Rs.30,016/- per
mensem, which is not in dispute. Deduction
of 1/3rd should have been been towards
personal expenses of deceased as per the
second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act
1988. It is further contended that the
Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/-
towards compensation for loss of love and
affection and funeral expenses. Nothing has
been awarded towards filial consortium of
the parents who have lost their daughter.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent
submitted
that
the
compensation and rate of interest awarded
by the Tribunal is just and proper and does
not call for any interference by this Court.

14. Having considered these facts and
the fact that the income of Rs.30,016/- as
decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute as,
according to the Form 16 produced, income
of the deceased per year was Rs.3,54,000/-,
hence, we can consider her income to be
Rs.30,000/-.per month . Unfortunately
though she was in employment and below
the age of 40 years, the Tribunal did not
think proper to grant any amount under the
head of future loss of income which is bad
in law. The amount of future loss of income
in the year of judgment was 50% of the
income earned. The Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050 has reiterated the
concept of future loss. The amount of
income has to be last pay. The deceased
was a salaried person below 40 years,
therefore, we would add 50% towards the
said head looking to the job qualification
and nature of work performed by the
deceased. As far as the deduction is
concerned, we are unable to accept the
submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that it should be 1/3rd. As
deceased was a divorced lady, therefore,
1/2 would be proper deduction. This takes
us to the question of multiplier, namely,
whether it should be as per the age of
parents or the age of the deceased. The said
issue is no longer res integra in view of the
decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) and the
judgment in Munna Lal Jain and another
Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others,
2015 (6) SCALE 552 and it is the age of
the deceased which should be considered
for the purpose of consideration of
multiplier. In our case, it should be 16
looking to the age of the deceased who was
in the age bracket of 31 to 35 years, which
is not in dispute. Lastly, we are of the view
that the amount under the head of filial
consortium would be Rs.50,000/- towards
the
parents
especially
mother.
Compensation towards funeral expenses is
awarded a Rs.15,000/-.

15. The appellants had the trauma of
emergency treatment of all the four persons
out of whom Malini Jain breathed her last.
Medical bills which have been produced
are amounting to Rs.3,000/- which has not
been considered by the Tribunal. We award
said amount rounded upto Rs.5,000/-.

16. Hence, the compensation payable
to the appellants in view of the decision of
4 All. Smt. Rashmi Jain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Seema Devi & Ors.
59
the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is
computed herein below:-

i. Income: Rs.30,000/- per month

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

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

iv. Income after deduction of
personal expenses will be 1/2 : Rs. 22,500/-

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

vi. Multiplier applicable : 16

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.2,70,000/- x 16 = Rs.43,20,000/-

viii.
Amount
under
filial
consortium heads: Rs.50,000/-

ix.
Amount
under
funeral
expenses head : Rs.15,000

x.
Amount
under
medical
expenses: Rs.5,000/-

xi.Total
compensation
:
Rs.
43,90,000/-

Liability:-

17. As far as the appellants are
concerned, the deceased was not a tort
feasor.
The Tribunal has
exonerated
respondent nos. 3 and 4 only on the ground
that the driver driving the vehicle owned by
respondent no. 3 insured by respondent
no.4 was also negligent and, therefore, 50
per cent has been deducted. The decision of
the Apex Court in Khenyei (supra) will
enure for the benefit of the appellants as it
is open to the claimants to recover entire
compensation from one of the joint tort
feasor as this is not a case of contributory
negligence but is a case of negligence
which can be said to be composite qua the
deceased. The New India Assurance
Company Ltd. is admittedly insurer of the
car in which the deceased was travelling.
Hence, we hold that the respondents
would be jointly liable for their portion of
amount. As far as the respondent no.2 M/s
Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance
Company Ltd. is concerned, it is conveyed
that 50% of the amount, which was
awarded, has already been deposited by
them.

18. As this is an appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which
is continuation of the proceedings, the New
India Insurance Company Ltd. has raised a
technical
stand
that
liability
of
the
Insurance Company cannot be extended to
death of rider in car. This ground is taken
but without any strong basis the reason
being that it has not been proved that
vehicle was not comprehensively insured.
The documentary evidence, which we have
perused from the record comprises of
document at Ext. 31 Ga-1/1, registration of
the vehicle; document at Ext. 31 Ga-1/3;
the insurance policy of The New India
Assurance Company Ltd.; and document at
Ext. 31 Ga-1/4, copy of driving licence of
Rohit Jain, which go to show that the
vehicle was comprehensively insured for
which the Insurance Company has insured
the owner. Copy of the policy shows that it
was insured for 4 +1 passangers and as is
clear
from
the
form,
it
was
a
comprehensive policy for which Rs.8,832
were taken as premium. The vehicle was
bought in the year of accident, i.e., six
months
before
the
fateful
accident
occurred. It was insured from 6.4.2010 to
5.4.2011. Hence, in view of the submission
of the learned counsel for apellants and
reliance placed on the decision of Khenyei
Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
and others (supra) cannot be of any aid to
the Insurnce Company once it is held that
the driver had proper driving licence. In
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deducting 50% of compensation, we have
considered the same as oral submissions
were made and it was contended that they
did not challenge as respondent no.4 was
exonerated. This feeble argument is not
supported by any documentary evidence
which shows that the said Judgment would
not come to the help of the respondent
Insurance Company. In that view of the
matter, we are unable to accept the
submission
of
the
counsel
for
the
respondent no.4 that the deduction is just
and proper. Reliance placed on the decision
titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Sudhakaran K. V. and others (Supra)
cannot aid the insurance company the
reason being the same was concerning non
insurable right of a pillion rider where the
policy was a Act policy. In the case on
hand the non grant of 50% of compensation
payable to claimants is because the driver
of the vehicle involved was held negligent.
This reasoning is against the settled
principle of awarding compensation in case
of composite negligence where both tort
fessors would be liable and in turn the
Insurance Company, which insured the
vehicle and where it is proved that there is
no breach of policy.

19. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the
latest decision ofthe Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Mannat
Johat 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
towhat is ordinarily envisaged in these
matters. TheHigh 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. At this stage, it has been
submitted by Sri Shukla, learned counsel
for the appellants that eleven years have
elapsed, the parents are at the fag end of
their lives, therefore, on deposit of
additional amount being made, this Court
may not direct deposit of said amounts in
fixed deposits and though this Court has
time and again directed the Insurance
Companies not to deduct TDS, the same is
being deducted.

21. We deem it fit to rely on the
Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
A.V.
Padma
and
others
Vs.
R.
Venugopal, 2012 (3) SCC 378 wherein the
Apex Court has considered the Judgment
rendered in General Manager, Kerala
State
Road
Transport
Corporation,
Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas and
others, AIR 1994 SC 1631. Paras 5 and 6
of A.V. Padma's Judgment read as under:-

"5. Thus, sufficient discretion has
been given to the Tribunal not to insist on
investment of the compensation amount in
long term fixed deposit and to release even
the whole amount in the case of literate
persons. However, the Tribunals are often
taking a very rigid stand and are
mechanically ordering in almost all cases
that the amount of compensation shall be
invested in long term fixed deposit. They
are taking such a rigid and mechanical
approach
without
understanding
and
appreciating the distinction drawn by this
Court in the case of minors, illiterate
4 All. Smt. Rashmi Jain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Seema Devi & Ors.
61
claimants and widows and in the case of
semi- literate and literate persons. It needs
to be clarified that the above guidelines
were issued by this Court only to safeguard
the interests of the claimants, particularly
the minors, illiterates and others whose
amounts are sought to be withdrawn on
some fictitious grounds. The guidelines
were not to be understood to mean that the
Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while
considering an application seeking release
of the money. The guidelines cast a
responsibility on the Tribunals to pass
appropriate orders after examining each
case on its own merits.

However, it is seen that even in
cases when there is no possibility or chance
of the feed being frittered away by the
beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy
or susceptibility to exploitation, investment
of the amount of compensation in long term
fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as
a matter of course and in a routine manner,
ignoring the object and the spirit of the
guidelines issued by this Court and the
genuine requirements of the claimants.
Even in the case of literate persons, the
Tribunals
are
automatically
ordering
investment of the amount of compensation
in
long
term
fixed
deposit
without
recording that having regard to the age or
fiscal background or the strata of the
society to which the claimant belongs or
such other considerations, the Tribunal
thinks
it
necessary
to
direct
such
investment in the larger interests of the
claimant and with a view to ensure the
safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the
claimant's application for withdrawal of
the
amount
of
compensation
in
a
mechanical manner and without proper
application of mind. This has resulted in
serious injustice and hardship to the
claimants. The Tribunals appear to think
that in view of the guidelines issued by this
Court, in every case the amount of
compensation should be invested in long
term
fixed
deposit
and
under
no
circumstances the Tribunal can release the
entire amount of compensation to the
claimant even if it is required by him.
Hence a change of attitude and approach
on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in
the interest of justice.

6. In this case, the victim of the
accident died on 21.7.1993. The award was
passed by the Tribunal on 15.2.2002. The
amount of compensation was enhanced by
the High Court on 6.7.2006. Neither the
Tribunal in its award nor the High Court in
its order enhancing compensation had
directed
to
invest
the
amount
of
compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The Insurance Company deposited the
compensation amount in the Tribunal on
7.1.2008. In the application filed by the
appellants
on
19.6.2008
seeking
withdrawal of the amount without insisting
on investment of any portion of the amount
in long term deposit, it was specifically
stated that the first appellant is an educated
lady who retired as a Superintendent of the
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation,
Bangalore. It was also stated that the
second appellant Poornachandrika is a
M.Sc. degree holder and the third appellant
Shalini was holding Master Degree both in
Commerce and in Philosophy. It was stated
that they were well versed in managing
their lives and finances. The first appellant
was already aged 71 years and her health
was not very good. She required money for
maintenance
and
also
to
put
up
construction on the existing house to
provide dwelling house for her second
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
daughter who was a co-owner along with
her. The second daughter was stated to be
residing in a rented house paying exorbitant
rent which she could not afford in view of the
spiralling costs. It was further stated in the
application that the first appellant was
obliged to provide a shelter to the first
daughter Poornachandrika. It was pointed
out that if the money was locked up in a
nationalised bank, only the bank would be
benefited by the deposit as they give a paltry
interest which could not be equated to the
costs
of
materials
which
were
ever
increasing. It was further stated that the
delay in payment of compensation amount
exposed the appellants to serious prejudice
and
economic
ruin.
Along
with
the
application, the second and third appellants
had filed separate affidavits supporting the
prayer in the application and stating that they
had no objection to the amount being paid to
the first appellant.

7. While rejecting the application
of the appellants, the Tribunal did not
consider any of the above-mentioned
aspects mentioned in the application.
Unfortunately, the High Court lost sight of
the said aspects and failed to properly
consider
whether,
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, there was any
need for keeping the compensation amount
in long term fixed deposit. "

22. Thus, it goes without saying that,
in our case, the oral prayer of Sri Shukla
requires to be considered as the guidelines
in A.V. Padma and others (supra) was in
the larger interest of the claimants. Rigid
stand should now be given way. People
even rustic villagers' have bank account
which has to be compusorily linked with
Aadhar, therefore, what is the purpose of
keeping money in fixed deposits in banks
where a person, who has suffered injuries
or has lost his kith and kin, is not able to
see the colour of compensation. We feel
that time is now ripe for setting fresh
guidelines as far as the disbursements are
concerned. The guidelines in Susamma
Thomas (supra), which are being blindly
followed, cause more trouble these days to
the
claimants
as
the
Tribunals
are
overburdened with the matters for each
time if they require some money, they have
to move the Tribunal where matters would
remain pending and the Tribunal on its free
will, as if money belonged to them, would
reject the applications for disbursements,
which is happening in most of the cases.
The parties for their money have to come to
court more particularly up to High Court,
which is a reason for our pain. Reliance can
be placed on Susamma Thomas (supra) in
matters where claimants prove and show
that they can take care of their money. In
our view, the Tribunal may release the
money with certain stipulations and that
guidelines have to be followed but not
rigidly followed as precedents. Recently,
the Jammu and Kashmir High Court was
faced with similar situation in the case of
Zeemal Bano and others Vs. Insurance
Company, 2020 TAC (2) 118.

23. One of usof Division Bench,
namely, Dr. Justice Kaushal Jayendra
Thaker in Single Bench of this Court has
held that the Insurance Company should
not deduct any amount under T.D.S in the
case of Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari
Singh and another, F.A.F.O. No.23 of
2001, decided on 26.11.2020, which should
be strictly adhered to. Relevant part of the
said Judgment is as under:-

" It is further orally conveyed that
even if the amounts will be deposited, the
Insurance company normally deducts TDS.
The judgement is reviewed and at the end.
4 All. (Deceased)Satish Chand Sharma & Ors. Vs. Manoj & Anr.
63

"I. On depositing the amount in
the Registry of the Tribunal, Registry is
directed to first deduct the amount of deficit
court fees, if any.

II. 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
not
illiterate and in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Hussain Babulal Shaikh and
others, 2017 (1) TAC 400 (Bom.).

III. 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 (as
directed in para No. II) without producing
the certificate from the concerned IncomeTax Authority.""

24. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Award and decree passed
by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the
aforesaid extent. The respondents shall
jointly
and
severally
liable
to
pay
additional amountwithin 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.
It is further directed that on deposit of the
amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the
entire amount by way of account payee
cheque or by way of RTGS to the account
of the appellants within 12 weeks from the
date the amounts are deposited by the
respondents. Record be sent back to the
Tribunal.

25. A copy of this Judgment be
circulated by the learned Registrar General
to the Tribunals in the State for guidance
after seeking approval of the Hon'ble the
Chief Justice.
----------
(2021)04ILR A63
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.03.2021

BEFORE

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

FAFO No.- 3160 of 2018

(Deceased)Satish Chand Sharma & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Manoj & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Abhishek, Sri Umesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nishant Mehrotra

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section
170
&
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,1908-Order 9 Rule 13-original
claimant passed away-family members
awarded further sum of money for mental
trauma and incidental expenses-execution