# Smt. Sarika Gupta & Ors v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 247
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-21
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1249 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sarika-gupta-ors-v-the-new-india-insurance-co-ltd-anr-48297
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Torts Law - Motor vehicle Act,1988 -
Section 173 - quantum of compensation -
beneficial difference of limitation - strict
rules of civil procedure and evidence act
are no required to adhered to.(Para - 8)

(B) Tax Law - The Income Tax Act, 1961-
Section 194A (3) (ix) - total amount of
interest, accrued on the principal amount
of compensation is to be apportioned on
financial year to financial year basis - 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' - if the
amount of interest does not exceeds
Rs.50,000/- in any financial year - registry
of Tribunal is directed to allow the
claimants
to
withdraw
the
amount
without producing the certificate from the
concerned Income-Tax Authority. (Para -
12)

Accident occurred - causing death - deceased
aged about 42 years of age - left behind him,
widow and three minor children - Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased to be
Rs.2000/- per month - awarding a sum of
Rs.3,67,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% as
compensation - aggrieved by order - hence
appeal.

HELD:-Total compensation : Rs.18,99,280/- .
Direction to respondent-Insurance Company to
deposit the amount along with additional
amount within a period of 12 weeks from today
with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date
of filing of the claim petition till the amount is
deposited.
Amount
already
deposited
be
deducted from the amount to be deposited.
Amount already deposited be deducted from the
amount to be deposited.(Para - 11,14)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

4 All. Smt. Sarika Gupta & Ors. Vs. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
247
Tribunals to decide matters arising out of
same accident by a common judgment and
award and not by separate awards which
may cause disparity.

42. The claimant-appellant is not an
illiterate person and the matters are pending
since 2007 before the High Court and since
2005 before the Tribunal, hence, the
purpose of keeping the money in Fixed
Deposit would not serve any purpose as the
amount can be disbursed as per the
judgment
in
Bajaj Allianz
General
Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union
of India and others, vide order dated
27.1.2022. The appellant may give his
accounts detail so that the money can be
directly disburse to him as and when the
Insurance company deposits the same.

43. We hope this direction would be
circulated by Registrar General after
obtaining permission from Hon'ble the
Chief Justice so that in future the Tribunal
will follow this direction of disbursement
of amount.
----------
(2022)04ILR A247
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1249 of 2008

Smt. Sarika Gupta & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Namit Kumar Sharma, Sri Nitinjay
Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava

(A) Torts Law - Motor vehicle Act,1988 -
Section 173 - quantum of compensation -
beneficial difference of limitation - strict
rules of civil procedure and evidence act
are no required to adhered to.(Para - 8)

(B) Tax Law - The Income Tax Act, 1961-
Section 194A (3) (ix) - total amount of
interest, accrued on the principal amount
of compensation is to be apportioned on
financial year to financial year basis - 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' - if the
amount of interest does not exceeds
Rs.50,000/- in any financial year - registry
of Tribunal is directed to allow the
claimants
to
withdraw
the
amount
without producing the certificate from the
concerned Income-Tax Authority. (Para -
12)

Accident occurred - causing death - deceased
aged about 42 years of age - left behind him,
widow and three minor children - Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased to be
Rs.2000/- per month - awarding a sum of
Rs.3,67,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% as
compensation - aggrieved by order - hence
appeal.

HELD:-Total compensation : Rs.18,99,280/- .
Direction to respondent-Insurance Company to
deposit the amount along with additional
amount within a period of 12 weeks from today
with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date
of filing of the claim petition till the amount is
deposited.
Amount
already
deposited
be
deducted from the amount to be deposited.
Amount already deposited be deducted from the
amount to be deposited.(Para - 11,14)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:-

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

2. Vimla Devi & ors. Vs National Insurance
Company Ltd. & anr. , (2019) 2 SCC 186

3. Anita Sharma Vs New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. (2021), 1 SCC 171

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

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

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

7. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corp., (2009)
6 SCC 121

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

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

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

11. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors., 20 19 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants;
Shri
Nagendra
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents; and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment & order
dated 28.1.2008 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
Court No.3, Mathura (hereinafter referred
to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.437 of 2005 awarding a sum of
Rs.3,67,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%
as compensation.

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

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellants that the Tribunal has not
granted any amount towards future loss of
income of the deceased which is required to
be granted in view of the decision in
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted
that amount under non-pecuniary heads
granted and the interest awarded by the
Tribunal are on the lower side and require
enhancement.
Learned
counsel
for
appellant submitted that deceased was
Business partner of M/s Sri Devi Pustak
Bhawan, Agra by profession and was
getting Rs.1,37,087/- per annum as per the
ITR of the year 2004-05. It is also
submitted that as the deceased was
survived by his widow and three minor
children and hence the deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased as 1/4 is
not in dispute. The multiplier has to be as
per age of deceased should have been
granted 15 is also not in dispute.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents, has vehemently objected the
contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the appellants and has submitted that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is just and proper and does not call for any
enhancement and it is also contended that
the multiplier has to be as per age of
4 All. Smt. Sarika Gupta & Ors. Vs. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
249
deceased should have been granted 14 in
place of 15.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and considered the factual data,
this Court found that the accident occurred
on 24.10.2005 causing death of Anil Kumar
Gupta who was 42 years of age and left
behind him, widow and three minor
children. The Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased to be Rs.2000/- per
month. The deceased was Business partner
of M/s Sri Devi Pustak Bhawan, Agra by
profession, the tribunal has committed
grave error in not considering that the
appellants had proved the income of the
deceased by proper evidence. The witness
was also examined so as to bring whom the
contention that the deceased was a
Business partner of M/s Sri Devi Pustak
Bhawan, Agra by profession. The evidence
of the witnesses has not been accepted
which is also against the Judgment in the
case of the Apex Court in Vimla Devi and
others Vs. National Insurance Company
Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186,
and, therefore, we are obliged to hold that
the deceased died due to the accidental
injuries.

7. The judgment of the Apex Court in
Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. (2021), 1 SCC 171 would also
apply to the facts of this case.

8. As far as beneficial difference of
limitation is concerned, the strict rules of
civil procedure and evidence act are no
required to adhered to.

9. In our case, prima facie it was proved
that his income was Rs.11,424/- as ITR of the
year 2004-05. In view of the judgment of
Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan
and others, AIR 2013 SC 3830 except
income Tax no amount could have been
deducted by the tribunal in the year of
question, i.e., 2005. The tribunal has erred
itself in not considering the income of the
deceased and has deducted amount which it
could not deduct holding that they were
personal benefits to the deceased. We cannot
concur with the tribunal as far as holding that
the deceased was earning Rs.11,424/- per
month. The income has to be considered to be
Rs.11,424/- per month, would be the income
of the deceased. The deceased was age
bracket of 40 to 50 years as Business partner,
25% of the income will have to be added as
future prospects in view of the decision of the
Apex
Court
in
National
Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. The
multiplier of 14 granted is just and proper and
not 15 as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi
(supra)
where
awarded
sum
of
Rs.70,000+30,000 interest, we round up the
same figure Rs.1,00,000/-.

10. In this backdrop were evaluate the
income in view of the judgment of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC)
1050 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, the
recalculation of compensation would be as
follows:

i. Income Rs.11,424/- p.m.

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 25% namely Rs.2856/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 11,424 +
2856 = Rs.14,280/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/4 :
Rs.10710/-

v. Annual income : Rs.10,710 x
12 = Rs.1,28,520/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 14 (as
the deceased was in the age bracket of 4145 years)
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.1,28,520 x 14 = Rs.17,99,280/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads
(Rs.70,000+30,000) = 1,00,000/-

ix. Total compensation (vii +
viii): Rs.18,99,280/-.

11. 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.

12. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291, total
amount of interest, accrued on the principal
amount
of
compensation
is
to
be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis and if the interest payable to
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance
company/owner
is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount
under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source'
as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest
does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any
financial year, registry of this Tribunal is
directed to allow the claimant to withdraw
the
amount
without
producing
the
certificate from the concerned Income- Tax
Authority. The aforesaid view has been
reiterated by this High Court in Review
Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna
and others Vs. Hari Singh and another)
while disbursing the amount.

13. As far as issue of rate of
interest is concerned, it should be 7.5%
in view of the latest decision of the
Apex Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others,
2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the
Apex Court has held as under :

"13. The aforesaid features
equally apply to the contentions urged
on behalf of the claimants as regards
the rate of interest. The Tribunal had
awarded interest at the rate of 12%
p.a. but the same had been too high a
rate
in
comparison
to
what
is
ordinarily envisaged in these matters.
The High Court, after making a
substantial enhancement in the award
amount,
modified
the
interest
component at a reasonable rate of
7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to
allow the interest in this matter at any
rate higher than that allowed by High
Court."

14. In view of the above, the appeal
is partly allowed. Judgment and decree
passed by the Tribunal shall stand
modified to the aforesaid extent. The
respondent-Insurance
Company
shall
deposit the amount along with additional
amount within a period of 12 weeks from
today with interest at the rate of 7.5%
from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the amount is deposited. The amount
already deposited be deducted from the
amount to be deposited.

15. We are thankful to learned
counsels for the parties for ably assisted the
Court.

16. Record be sent back to court
below forthwith, if any.
----------
4 All. Vipin Kumar Vs. Reliance General Insurance Com. Ltd. & Ors.
251
(2022)04ILR A251
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1427 of 2021

Vipin Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Com. Ltd. &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Bed Kant Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra

(A) Torts Law - Motor vehicle Act,1988 -
Sections 163A,166 & 173 - quantum of
compensation - if the injury is not
specified in Schedule on such percentage
of compensation would be payable in case
of
permanent
total
disablement
proportionate
to
loss
of
earning
capacity.(Para - 8)

(B) Tax Law - The Income Tax Act, 1961-
Section 194A (3) (ix) - total amount of
interest, accrued on the principal amount
of compensation is to be apportioned on
financial year to financial year basis - 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' - if the
amount of interest does not exceeds
Rs.50,000/- in any financial year - registry
of Tribunal is directed to allow the
claimants
to
withdraw
the
amount
without producing the certificate from the
concerned Income-Tax Authority.(Para -
14)

Claimant earning Rs. 18,200/- age 22 years -
Accident - Functional disability 25% - Awarding
a sum of Rs.2, 30,000/- as compensation with
interest at the rate of 7% - aggrieved by order
of tribunal - hence appeal.

HELD:-Finding of Tribunal against the contours
of grant of compensation for injuries. Functional
disability 25%, to which he would be entitled to
Rs.50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering .
Sum of Rs. 50,000/- granted for other non
pecuniary
damages.
Total
compensation:
17,06,420/-. Direction to respondent-Insurance
Company to deposit the amount along with
additional amount within a period of 12 weeks
from today with interest at the rate of 7.5%
from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the amount is deposited. Amount already
deposited be deducted from the amount to be
deposited. (Para - 7,8,9, 12)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Sanjay Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar & anr., (2014)
5 SCC 330

2. Syed. Sadiq & ors. Vs Divisional Manager,
U.I.I.C.L. , (2014) 2 SCC 735

3. V. Mekala Vs M. Malathi & anr., (2014) 11
SCC 178

4. Hari Babu Vs Amrit Lal & ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C.
718 (All.)

5. Anthony @ Anthony Swamy Vs Managing
Director, K.S.R.T.C., 2020 (0) AIJEC-SC 66306

6. Anita Sharma Vs New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 66810

7. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pankaj, 2014
(2) TAC 240 All

8. Shivdhar Kumar Vashiya Vs Ranjeet Singh &
ors., 2022 (0) Supreme (SC) 40

9. Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & anr., (2011) 1
SCC 343