# Smt. Sarojini Devi & Ors v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Mainpuri & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 196
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-09
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 636 of 1998
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sarojini-devi-ors-v-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-mainpuri-ors-50581
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act,1988Section 173-quantum of compensation-
his income can be considered to be
Rs.1500/- per month- the deceased was
36 years at the time of accident, 40% of
the income would have to be added as
future loss of income to the deceased,
deduction would have to be of 1/3rd as
there are two minor children, a mother
and a widow, multiplier of 16 as deceased
was 36 years of age and Rs. 70,000/- +
Rs. 50,000/- each for two minor childrenThus,
the
Total
compensation
Rs.
4,38,800/- is granted at the rate of 7%
from the date of filing of the claim petition
till decision of the claim petition and 6%
thereafter. (Para 1 to 16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
context with the Compensation Act of 1923
as shall be evident from the award itself.
Accordingly, this liability of Rs.3,36,000/-
is liable to be indemnified by the insurance
company.

35. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court has no hesitation to hold that the
decision rendered by the Tribunal does not
suffer from an error to persuade this Court
to arrive at any other finding. No other
issue was raised before this Court,
accordingly, the award dated 10.07.2019
passed in C.P. No. 646 of 2013 is affirmed
and the appeal being devoid of merits is
dismissed. In the facts and circumstances,
there shall be no order as to costs. Record
of the Tribunal be sent to the Court
concerned.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 196
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 636 of 1998

Smt. Sarojini Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Mainpuri &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri B.R. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Kumar Sinha

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act,1988Section 173-quantum of compensation-
his income can be considered to be
Rs.1500/- per month- the deceased was
36 years at the time of accident, 40% of
the income would have to be added as
future loss of income to the deceased,
deduction would have to be of 1/3rd as
there are two minor children, a mother
and a widow, multiplier of 16 as deceased
was 36 years of age and Rs. 70,000/- +
Rs. 50,000/- each for two minor childrenThus,
the
Total
compensation
Rs.
4,38,800/- is granted at the rate of 7%
from the date of filing of the claim petition
till decision of the claim petition and 6%
thereafter. (Para 1 to 16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal (2012) 1 GLH SC
442

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

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

4. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Pvt Ltd. Vs UOI &
ors.

5. Gobald Motor Services Ltd. & anr. Vs
R.M.K.Veluswami & ors. (1962) SCR(1) 929

6. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.
(2017) LawSuit SC 1093

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

1. Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri A.K.
Shukla, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgement and
order
dated
7.11.1997
passed
by
M.A.C.T/Special
Judge
(E.C.
Act),
Mainpuri
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 167 of 1996.
The accident is not in dispute. His death by
the accident is not in dispute. The issue of
8 All. Smt. Sarojini Devi & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Mainpuri & Ors.
197
negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in
dispute. The only issue to be decided is, the
quantum of compensation awarded.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that on 05.03.1996 deceased
Jagdish Singh was travelling in Tempo no.
U.T.M. 9478. At about 10:00 A.M infront
of Shankar cold storage Bewar on G.T.
road the said tempo collided with truck no.
H.R. 26/6368 resulting in the death of
many persons including Sahab Singh. It is
alleged that truck no. H.R. 26/6368 was
being driven very rashly and negligently by
its deiver as a result of which accident
occurred.

4. The deceased Jagdish Singh was 36
years of age was earning Rs. 2000/- p.m
from agricultural and animal husbandary
and his legal heirs consist of his father,
mother, widow and two minor sons. The
tribunal considered the income of the
deceased Rs. 1500/-p.m to which the
deduction was 1/3rd, 20% was deducted as
lum sum compensation was granted and at
the end applied multiplier of 12 and granted
Rs. 1,19,200/- with 12% interest.

5. It is submitted by Sri B.R. Singh,
learned counsel for the appellants that
according to the oral statement of the
widow of deceased income of the deceased
was Rs. 2000/- p.m to which 40% be added
as per the judgment of Gobald Motor
Services
Ltd.
and
another
Vs.
R.M.K.Veluswami
and
other,
1962,
SCR(1) 929 which had presidential values
even in those days, the deduction of 20%
lum sum has been deprecated by the
Supreme Court time and again, the
deduction
of
1/3rd
is
not
assailed,
multiplier of 15 and non pecuniary
damages be granted as per the judgment of
the Apex Court National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017
LawSuit (SC) 1093 or as per the rules
applied in U.P and the interest of 12% is
maintained. It is further submitted by Sri
B.R.Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants that no amount under the head of
future loss of income has been granted.

6. Per contra, As against this, it is
submitted by Sri A.K.Shukla, learned
counsel for the respondents that in absence
of any proof except the certificate there is
no error which calls for any interference,
however, Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel
for the respondent could not point out as to
non grant of future prospects and that
multiplier of 15 be applied.

7. After hearing the counsel for the
parties and perusing the judgment and
order impugned, this Court feels that his
income can be considered to be Rs.1500/-
per month. To which as the deceased was
30 years at the time of accident, 40% of the
income would have to be added as future
loss of income to the deceased, deduction
would have to be of 1/3rd as there are two
minor children, a mother and a widow,
multiplier of 16 as deceased was 36 years
of age and Rs. 70,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- each
for two minor children. The oral objection
of Sri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel is
accepted.

8. Further, this Court feels that the
quantum/compensation
requires
to
be
recalculated. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants is computed
herein below:

i. Income : Rs.1500/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.600/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 1500 + 600
= Rs. 2100/-
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

iv. Income after deduction of
1/3rd : Rs. 1400/-

v. Annual loss : Rs. 3266 x 12 =
Rs. 16,800/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 16

vii. Total loss : Rs. 16,800 x 16 =
Rs. 2,68,800/-

xii. Amount under non-pecuniary
head : Rs.70,000/-+50,000/-+50,000/-

xiii.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.4,38,800/-

9. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, 7% from the date of filing of the
claim petition till decision of the claim
petition and 6% thereafter.

10. No other grounds are urged orally
when the matter was heard.

11. 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 respondent-Insurance
Company shall deposit the recalculated
amount within a period of 12 weeks from
today with interest as directed above.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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
more than 10 years have elapsed, the
amount be deposited in the Saving Account
of claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.

16. Record be sent back to the
tribunal.
8 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., M.G. Marg, Allahabad Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors.
199

17. This Court is thankful to Sri
B.R.Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants and Sri A.K.Shukla, learned
counsel for respondents for ably assisting
this Court.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 199
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1063 of 1998

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , M.G.
Marg, Allahabad ...Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Avnish Mishra, Sri Aditya Singh Parihar,
Ms. Poonam Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.R. Jaiswal, Sri B.N Pandey

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act,1988Section
173-Challenge
to-award
of
compensation-Tribunal has fallen in error
in considering the disability certificate -
claimant was a driver by profession- There
is an amputation of lower limb which is
below the thigh-the physical disability
caused due to an accident has to be
judged with reference to the nature of
work being done by the injured for
assessing award of compensation which is
given in a decade old judgment of Apex
Court in Mohan Soni- In the instant case
the physical disability which has resulted
from the accident requires to be judged
with the work being performed by a
person-The
respondent
in
this
case
suffered injury on his right lower limb had
to be amputated on account of accident as
a result of accident and amputation of his
right lower limb, he would not be in a
position to perform his routine work of
driver- The amount awarded holds that he
was earning Rs.1,000/- and that is how
Rs.12000/- have been calculated and
granted multiplier of 13 which comes to
Rs.2,00,000/- The award of the year 1998
and the rate of interest was normally at
the rate of 9% but as future loss is not
granted, looking to the other amount
which are also on the lower side, interest
at the rate of 10% cannot be said on
higher side.(Para 1 to 10)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Mohan Soni Vs Ram Avtar Tomar & ors. (2012)
2 SCC 267

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

1. By way of this appeal, the New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged
the judgment and award dated 29.8.1998
passed by IXth Additional and Session
Judge, Kanpur Dehat in MACP No.317 of
1993
awarding
compensation
of
Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
10% to the respondent-claimants.

2. The brief facts as culled out from
the record are that the the claimant-Ramesh
Chandra was employed as a driver on
Truck No. UP-78/9655 and on 19.12.1992
at about 6:00 a.m. when he was going
towards Hamirpur, his truck met with an
accident with another truck bearing Truck
No. U.A.N.-8577. The claimant-Ramesh
Chandra sustained serious injuries which
resulted in amputation of his leg.

3. The accident is not in dispute and,
therefore, the said aspect is not is caused.
The policy being in vouge is also not in
dispute and their liability is not in dispute.