# Smt. Saroj Sachan & Ors v. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 872
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-21
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 4197 of 2018
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-saroj-sachan-ors-v-bharti-axa-general-insurance-co-ltd-ors-48599
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Quantum of Compensation - deceased was
Senior Engineer in Hilman Capital Finance
Ltd - His income shown in the pay slip for
May 2016 was Rs.60,050/- Form 16AA for
the period 1st April 2016 to 9th June
2016, show his income to be Rs. 1,47,923
- Held - from the income, at least Income
Tax should be deducted court consider
the
income
of
the
deceased
to
be
Rs.50,000 per month - Addition of 30%
toward future loss of income - multiplier
of 12 - deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th
reason being, parent of the deceased who
were in their 90s has passed away -
appellants would be entitled to Rs. 70,000
plus 10% rise in every three years i.e. Rs.
1,00,000 under this head (Para 10)
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

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

33. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India
and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as
the purpose of keeping compensation is to
safeguard the interest of the claimants. As 8
years have elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.

34. We are thankful to the learned
Advocates for ably assisting the Court.
----------
(2022)05ILR A872
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 4197 of 2018

Smt. Saroj Sachan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors. ...Respondents

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

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pawan Kumar Singh

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Quantum of Compensation - deceased was
Senior Engineer in Hilman Capital Finance
Ltd - His income shown in the pay slip for
May 2016 was Rs.60,050/- Form 16AA for
the period 1st April 2016 to 9th June
2016, show his income to be Rs. 1,47,923
- Held - from the income, at least Income
Tax should be deducted court consider
the
income
of
the
deceased
to
be
Rs.50,000 per month - Addition of 30%
toward future loss of income - multiplier
of 12 - deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th
reason being, parent of the deceased who
were in their 90s has passed away -
appellants would be entitled to Rs. 70,000
plus 10% rise in every three years i.e. Rs.
1,00,000 under this head (Para 10)
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sangita Arya & ors.. Vs Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. & ors.., 2020 LawSuit (SC) 432

2. Rukmani Jethani & ors. Vs Gopal Singh &
ors., 2021 (4) T.A.C. 23 (SC)

3. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan & ors.,
2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.)

4. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093

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

6. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442

7. Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., 2007(2) GLH 291

8. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001

9. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Vs U.O.I. & ors. vide dated 27.1.2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)
5 All. Smt. Saroj Sachan & Ors. Vs. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
873

1. Heard Sri Shreesh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the respondent and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 13.8.2018 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/VIIIth Addl.
District Judge, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P
No.700 of 2016 awarding a sum of
Rs.42,78,200/-
as
compensation
with
interest at the rate of 7%.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal
is also not in dispute. The only issue to be
decided is the quantum of compensation
awarded.

4. The accident took place in the year
2016. The deceased was 48 years of age
and was Senior Engineer in Hilman Capital
Finance Ltd. The Tribunal has considered
the income of the deceased to be
Rs.34,000/- per month, added 30% towards
future loss of income, deducted 1/3rd
towards personal expenses of the deceased,
granted multiplier of 12 and awarded
Rs.35,000/-
towards
non-pecuniary
damages. That is how the Tribunal has
calculated
the
compensation
to
be
Rs.42,78,200/- against Rs.1,62,00,000/- as
claimed by the claimants-appellants which
has aggrieved them.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellants that the income of the
deceased was Rs.62,000/- (rounded figure)
but the Tribunal has wrongly considered
his income to be Rs.34,000/- only. It is
submitted that the learned Tribunal has
brushed aside the Income Tax Returns and
the appointment and considered only basic
as according to the Tribunal the deceased
was in service only for two month and was
a probationer. Learned counsel for the
appellant has relied on the decisions in
Sangita Arya & Ors. Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2020
LawSuit (SC) 432, Rukmani Jethani and
Others Vs. Gopal Singh and others, 2021
(4) T.A.C. 23 (SC), Vimal Kanwar and
Others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013
(3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.) to buttress his
submission that the finding of the Tribunal
as far as income is concerned is bad. The
Tribunal has calculated the income of the
deceased to be Rs.34,000/- on the basis that
it was the basic salary. This could not have
been done is the submission of learned
counsel for the appellants.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants
has further submitted that the deceased was
survived by his widow, one son and parents
and, therefore, the deduction towards
personal expenses would be 1/4th and not
1/3rd as done by the Tribunal.

7. It is also submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that the amount
awarded under non pecuniary damages is
on the lower side and is required to be
enhanced in view of the decision in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC)
1093 and the later decision of the Apex
Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant
has lastly submitted that the interest
awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side
and it should be as per the repo rate
prevailing in those days.

9. As against this, learned counsel for
respondent-Insurance
Company
has
contended that the income which is asked
cannot be granted and at least income tax
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be deducted from the income. It is further
submitted by Sri Pawan Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent that
deduction towards personal expenses is just
and
proper
and
does
not
call
for
interference of this Court. It is also
submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent that the amount awarded under
non pecuniary heads and interest granted
by the Tribunal are just and proper and
does not call for interference of this Court.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and considering the Salary Slip, Form
16 and the decisions cited by the learned
counsel for the appellants, we hold that had the
deceased been alive, he would have been
earning Rs.62,000/- per month. The deceased
was Senior Engineer in Hilman Capital
Finance Ltd. His income shown in the pay slip
for May 2016 was Rs.60,050/- Form 16AA
for the period 1st April 2016 to 9th June 2016,
show his income to be Rs. 1,47,923/-.
However, we are in agreement with Sri Pawan
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent that from the income, at least
Income Tax should be deducted and, therefore,
we consider the income of the deceased to be
Rs.50,000/- per month. Addition of 30%
toward future loss of income and multiplier of
12 granted by the Tribunal are just and proper,
hence, are not disturbed. As far as deduction
towards personal expenses of the deceased is
concerned, we are in agreement with Sri
Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the
appellants that it should be 1/4th reason being,
parent of the deceased who were in their 90s
has passed away during this interregnum
period and unless proved otherwise, they are
dependent on their son. Therefore, the
deduction of 1/4th would be just and proper.

11. As far as amount under nonpecuniary
heads
is
concerned,
the
appellants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/-
plus 10% rise in every three years in view
of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay
Sethi (Supra) and, therefore, we round up
the figure to Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.

12. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants is computed
herein below:

i. Monthly Income: Rs.50,000/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 30% namely Rs.15,000/-

iii. Total income : Rs.50,000
+15,000 = Rs.65,000/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/4th
towards
personal
expenses
:
Rs.48,750/-

v. Annual income : Rs.48,750 x
12 = Rs.5,85,000/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 12

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.5,85,000 x 12 = Rs.70,20,000/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : Rs.1,00,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.71,20,000/-

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
5 All. Smt. Saroj Sachan & Ors. Vs. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
875
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. No other grounds are urged orally
when the matter was heard.

15. 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 respondentInsurance Company shall deposit the
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.

16. 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 be passed by Tribunal..

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

18.

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 judgment of A.V. Padma
(supra). The same is to be applied looking
to the facts of each case.

19. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India
and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as
the purpose of keeping compensation is to
safeguard the interest of the claimants. As
10 years have elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.

20. This Court is thankful to both the
counsels for getting this matter decided.
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2022)05ILR A876
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 4228 of 2012

Dharmendra Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, Sri Mohd. Asim
Zulfiquar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajeev Ojha

A. Civil Law -Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Quantum of Compensation - Injury case -
Disability certificate issued on 20.11.2009
granted by Community Health Centre,
Chandausi, District Moradabad showing
disability to the tune of 45%. - second
disability certificate issued on 16.02.2010
issued
after
conducting
medical
examination by a panel of doctors, signed
and issued by Chief Medical Officer,
Moradabad certifying disability of 45% of
body as a whole which is same as shown
in certificate issued earlier by Community
Health
Centre,
Chandausi
-
tribunal
discarded
certificate
of
permanent
disability on the ground that it is not
signed by three doctors and it is not
proved by calling the concerned doctors -
Also tribunal held that there are two
disability certificates on record and it
cannot be possible to issue two medical
disability certificates - Held - it is not the
requirement
of
law
that
disability
certificate should be proved by calling the
Doctors issuing it or doctors on the board
- disability certificate requires no oral
testimony - merely on the ground that two
certificates are issued, it cannot be said
that these certificates are fake in absence
of any evidence (Para 15 , 16, 17 )
B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Quantum of Compensation - Injury case -
Chief Medical Officer, certified disability of
45% of body as a whole - Court assessed
functional disability of appellant to the
tune
of
25%
for
the
purpose
of
computation of compensation, 25% for
permanent disability - court hold the
income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- p.m.
because he was a mason - At the time of
accident, the claimant was below 40
years of age, hence, 30% of the income be
added for future loss of income - claimant
was of 28 years of age, hence multiplier of
17 would be applicable - Rs.50,000 for
pain and suffering - Amount under other
non pecuniary head Rs 50,000
- -
Insurance Company directed to deposit
the amount along with additional amount
with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the
amount
is
deposited
-
amount
be
transmitted in the Saving Account of
claimant in Nationalized Bank which
would be furnished by claimant without
F.D.R (Para 19, 21, 24)
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC
65725

2. Philips Vs Western Railway Co. (1874) 4QBD
406

3. H. West & Son Ltd. Vs Shephard 1963 2 WLR
1359

4. Rajkumar Vs Ajay Kumar ors. (2011) 1 SCC
343

5. K. Suresh Vs New India Assurance Company
Ltd. & ors., (2012) 12 SCC 274