# Smt. Sarla Devi & Ors v. Satendra Singh & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 101
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-17
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1002 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sarla-devi-ors-v-satendra-singh-anr-47632
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was Assistant
Teacher and his salary was Rs.
30,958/- per month-he left behind his
widow and four minor children-Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 16,95,350/-
together with interest @ 7% per annum
as compensation-Tribunal added 50% of
income towards the future loss of
income keeping in view 30 years of age
of
the
deceased
and
also
applied
multiplier of 17 instead of 16 as per
direction of Apex Court in Sarla Verma
case-Hence, there is no illegality in
fixation of award-award is modified only
to the extent of the rate of interest
which shall be 7.5% per annum.(Para 1
to 16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Smt. Sarla Devi & Ors. Vs. Satendra Singh & Anr.
101
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.

22.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein. The Tribunals in the State shall
follow the direction of this Court as herein
aforementioned as far as disbursement is
concerned, it should look into the condition
of the litigant and the pendency of the
matter and apply the judgment of A.V.
Padma (supra). The same is to be applied
looking to the facts of each case.

23. Record and proceedings be sent to
the Tribunal.
----------
(2022)01ILR A101
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2021
BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1002 of 2021

Smt. Sarla Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Satendra Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shiv Narayan Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mohd. Ashraf

A. Civil Law -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was Assistant
Teacher and his salary was Rs.
30,958/- per month-he left behind his
widow and four minor children-Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 16,95,350/-
together with interest @ 7% per annum
as compensation-Tribunal added 50% of
income towards the future loss of
income keeping in view 30 years of age
of
the
deceased
and
also
applied
multiplier of 17 instead of 16 as per
direction of Apex Court in Sarla Verma
case-Hence, there is no illegality in
fixation of award-award is modified only
to the extent of the rate of interest
which shall be 7.5% per annum.(Para 1
to 16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dr. Anoop Kumar Bhattacharya & anr. Vs
National Ins. Co. Ltd. (2021) LawSuit (All) 1327

2. Sarla Verma & ors. VsDTC & anr.(2009) ACJ
1298

3. National Ins. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017)
LawSuit (SC) 1093
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal & ors.
(2019) 2 TAC 705 SC

5. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Ins. Co. Ltd (2007) 2 GLH 291

6. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
FAFO No . 23 of 2001

7. Tej Kumari Sharma Vs Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Ins. Co. Ltd, FAFO No. 2871 of 2016

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

1. This appeal at the behest of the
appellants has been preferred against the
judgement and order dated 04.04.2019
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chitrakoot
in
MACP
No.154/70/2016
(Smt. Sarla Devi & others Vs. Satendra
Singh), whereby learned Tribunal awarded
Rs.16,95,350/- with rate of interest 7% per
annum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the
claim petition was filed by the appellants for
the death of Chandra Pal @ Chandan Singh
Rathore, who died in road accident. It is
averred in petition that on 16.10.2016 at
about 7:30, the Deceased Chandra Pal was
travelling in Tata Safari No. U.P.79 J 9596
from Maihar to Karvi Banda road via
Chitrakoot. When he reached at the place of
accident,
the
aforesaid
vehicle
was
overturned due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the said vehicle. In this
accident, deceased sustained fatal injuries and
died on the spot. As per averments the of
petition, deceased was Assistant Teacher and
his salary was Rs.30,958/- per month.

3.

Learned
Tribunal
awarded
Rs.16,95,350/- compensation with rate of
interest of 7% per annum but appellants were
not happy with the award. Hence, this appeal.

4. Heard Shri Shiv Narayan Pandey,
learned counsel for the appellants and Shri
Mohd. Ashraf, learned counsel for the
respondent as well as perused the record.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The
Insurance Company has not challenged the
liability imposed on it. Hence, mainly the
dispute between the parties is regarding the
amount of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that on the date of death of the
deceased, he was serving as Assistant
Teacher in Primary School Mahotara,
Block- Naraini, District- Banda and was
getting salary of Rs.30958/- per month. It is
also submitted that on the date of accident,
deceased was on probation and getting
probation allowances of Rs.7300/- per
month. Learned counsel for the appellants
emphatically
submitted
that
learned
Tribunal has considered the salary of the
deceased as Rs.7,300/- per month only but
the real fact is that after confirmation,
deceased would have got Rs.30,958/- per
month as salary. Hence, Tribunal should
have
calculated
the
amount
of
compensation on the basis of salary
Rs.30,958 per month and not on the basis
of Rs.7,300/-. It is next submitted by
learned counsel for the appellants that
Tribunal has not added any sum towards
future loss of income. In addition to these
arguments, last argument was made by
learned counsel for the appellants that in
non-pecuniary heads, Tribunal has awarded
only Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium and
Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Learned
counsel for the appellants relied on the
latest judgement of this Court Dr. Anoop
Kumar Bhattacharya and another Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited
2021 LawSuit (All) 1327.
1 All. Smt. Sarla Devi & Ors. Vs. Satendra Singh & Anr.
103

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company objected the contentions made by
the learned counsel for the appellants and
submitted that at the time of death, the
deceased was on probation and during
probation period his salary was Rs.7,300/-
only as per his salary certificate. Learned
counsel argued that the compensation was
calculated by Tribunal on the basis of the
amount of salary which the deceased was
getting on the date of accident which is
quite correct. Future salary cannot be taken
into consideration. Learned counsel also
submitted that appellants have wrongly
argued that the Tribunal has not added any
sum towards future loss of income because
Tribunal has added 50% of income for
future prospects. Lastly, learned counsel for
the insurance company submitted that
learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of
17 while keeping in view the 30 years of
age of the deceased, the multiplier of 16
should have been applied as per the
direction of the Apex Court in Sarla
Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ
1298. Hence, there is no error or illegality
in fixation of award and it does not call any
interference by this Court.

8. The principles with regard to the
determination
of
just
compensation
contemplated under the Motor Vehicle
Act are well settled. The Court has to
make a judicious attempt to award
damages, so as to compensate the
claimants for the loss suffered by them.
On the one hand, the compensation
should
not
be
assessed
very
conservatively but on the other hand, the
compensation should also not be assessed
so liberally so as to make it a bonanza for
the claimant.

9. We have perused the record,
which shows that the office of District
Basic Education Officer, Banda has issued
the appointment order of the deceased,
which shows that before getting confirmed,
he had to remain on probation as trainee
teacher for six months (three months
practical and three months theory). He was
appointed on Rs.7,300/- per month fixed
honorarium.
Perusal
of
statement
of
A.P.W2- Raja Bhaiya has also clarified in
his statement that at the time of death, the
deceased was working as Trainee Assistant
Teacher and during six months of training
he was getting Rs.7,300/- per month. He
would have been entitled to the salary of
Rs.30,958/- per month after completion of
the training period of six months. But, it is
admitted fact that the deceased died before
completing the training period. Hence, it
cannot be disputed that on the date of
death, the deceased was getting salary
Rs.7,300/- per month and only this amount
was
relevant
for
computation
of
compensation, which is rightly done by the
learned Tribunal. We are in full agreement
with the finding of the learned Tribunal that
Rs.7,300/- per month is the amount which
is to be taken into consideration for the
purpose of computation of compensation.

10. Perusal of the record shows that
learned Tribunal has added 50% of the
income for future loss of the income.
Hence, the argument of the appellants that
no amount is added by Tribunal for future
loss of income is against the record and we
reject the same.

11. Learned Tribunal has applied
multiplier of 17 while it should have been
16 as per the Apex Court judgement Sarla
Verma (Supra). It is correct that learned
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for
consortium and Rs.5,000/- for funeral
expenses. In this way, Rs.20,000/- are
awarded for non-pecuniary damages while
it should have been Rs.70,000/- as per the
directions of Hon'ble the Apex Court in
National Insurance Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 but if
Rs.50,000/- more are added in the head of
non-pecuniary damages and multiplier of
16 is applied instead of 17 (as applied by
Tribunal), final amount of compensation
will come down to some extent. Hence, we
consider it proper not to disturb the amount
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
and we maintain it.

12. 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."

13. 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.

14. Hence, the appeal is partly
allowed and award is modified only to the
extent of the rate of interest which shall be
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition to the date of deposit.
Award is modified to the extent as above
accordingly.

15. Insurance company is directed to
deposit the amount within eight weeks
from today. The amount already deposited
is to be deducted from the amount to be
deposited.

16. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 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.
----------
1 All. Dr. Anoop Kumar Bhattacharya & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
105
(2022)01ILR A105
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1652 of 2009

Dr. Anoop Kumar Bhattacharya & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Sanjay Singh, Sri Amrendra Nath Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amit Manohar

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was 24 years old
and was in final year of MBA Course , he
was earning Rs. 13,080/- per month as
part time job-he left behind his mother
and father- Tribunal computed loss of
dependency
4,60,000/-
by
applying
multiplier 8 and the said figure was then
halved to Rs. 2,30,000/- to account for
the contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased-contributory negligence on
the part of the deceased unsustainableTotal
compensation
payable
to
the
claimants works out to Rs. 33,50,000/- by
applying multiplier 18 with interest rate
8% per annum.(Para 1 to 143)

The appeal is partly allowed.(E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Pramod
Kumar
Rasikbhai
Jhaveri
Vs
Karmasey Kunvargi Tak (2002) 6 SCC 155

2. Mohammed Siddique & anr. Vs National
Ins. Co. Ltd. & ors. (2020) 3 SCC 57

3. Jiju Kuruvila & ors. Vs Kunjujamma Mohan &
ors. (2013) 9 SCC 166

4. Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs New India Assr. Co.
Ltd. & anr. (2010) 10 SCC 254

5. Neeta W/O Kallappa Kadolkar & ors. Vs Div.
Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur (2015) 16 SCC 680

6. National Ins. Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi & ors.
(2017) 16 SCC 680

7. Jabbar Vs MSRTC, (2019) 0 Supreme SC
2283

8. Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs DTC & anr (2009)
2 SCC (Civ) 770

9. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal & ors
(2019) 15 SCC 260

10. B D Bagri Vs Daulat Ram & ors. (1998) ACJ
1303

11. Mata Ji Beva & ors. Vs Hemant Kumar
(1994) ACJ 1303

12. Anita Sharma & ors. Vs The New India Assr.
Co. Ltd. & anr. (2021) 1 SCC 171

13. Dulcina Fernandes & ors. Vs Joaquim Xavier
Cruz & ors. (2013) 10 SCC 646

14. Bimla Devi Vs Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC
530: (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC
(Cri) 1101

15. M. Siddiq Vs Suresh Das (2020) 1 SCC 1

16. Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Ins. Co. & ors.
(2018) 5 SCC 656

17. N.K.V. Bros.(P) Ltd. Vs M. Karumai Ammal &
ors. (1980) 3 SCC 457

18. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Shila Datta