# Smt. Seema Devi & Ors v. Haribansh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 331
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-21
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3806 of 2007
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-seema-devi-ors-v-haribansh-ors-48525
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Compensation
-
Rash
and
negligent
driving - 24 years old deceased was an
electrician
-
Tribunal
applied
the
multiplier of 17 - Validity challenged -
High Court re-computed the compensation
by adding 40% future prospect and
applying multiplier of 18 - Pranay Sethi's
case relied upon. (Para 7 and 10)

B. Civil Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 194A (3) (ix) - Withdraw of
amount of interest - Certificate of Income
Tax authority, when required - Held, if the
interest payable to any claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
Rs.
50,000/-,
insurance Co./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 - But 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. (Para 12)
Appeal partly allowed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

5 All. Smt. Seema Devi & Ors. Vs. Haribansh & Ors.
331

23. We are thankful to learned
counsels for the parties for ably assisting
this court in getting this old appeal
disposed of.

24. Record be sent back to tribunal
below forthwith.
----------
(2022)05ILR A331
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 3806 of 2007

Smt. Seema Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Haribansh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Hari Pratap Gupta

Counsel for the Resondents:
Sri Ankur Mehrotra

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Compensation
-
Rash
and
negligent
driving - 24 years old deceased was an
electrician
-
Tribunal
applied
the
multiplier of 17 - Validity challenged -
High Court re-computed the compensation
by adding 40% future prospect and
applying multiplier of 18 - Pranay Sethi's
case relied upon. (Para 7 and 10)

B. Civil Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 194A (3) (ix) - Withdraw of
amount of interest - Certificate of Income
Tax authority, when required - Held, if the
interest payable to any claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
Rs.
50,000/-,
insurance Co./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 - But 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. (Para 12)
Appeal partly allowed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Smt. Meena Pawaia & ors. Vs Ashraf Ali &
ors. 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694
2. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corp.; (2009)
6 SCC 121
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050
4. Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & anr. Vs Shyam
Kishore Murmu & anr.; 2021 (4) TAC 673
5. Smt. Meena Pawaia & ors. Vs Ashraf Ali &
ors. 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694, Basanti Devi and
Kurvan
6. Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & anr. Vs Shyam Kishore
Murmu & anr.; 2021 (4) TAC 673
7. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. [2007(2) GLH 291]
8. Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First
Appeal From Order No. 23 of 2001; Smt.
Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
9. First Appeal From Order No. 2871 of 2016;
Tej Kumari Sharma VsChola Mandlam M.S.
General
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
decided
on
19.3.2021
10. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Vs U.O.I. & ors. decided by the Apex Court on
27.1.2022
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the
claimants-appellants
against
the
judgement and award passed by Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/ Additional
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
District Judge, Court No.5 Gorakhpur dated
15.09.2007 in MACP No.729 of 2016 (Smt.
Seema and others Vs. Haribansh and
others), by which the Tribunal has awarded
compensation Rs.1,89,500/- with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that
claimants-appellants filed a claim petition
before the Tribunal seeking compensation
under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for the
death of Ajit Kumar (deceased) in a road
accident with the averments that on
7.10.2005 at about 6:30 pm, the deceased
was travelling from Gorakhpur Shahar to
his house Semuapar in tempo bearing
No.UP 53 L 9090. The driver of the
aforesaid tempo was driving the vehicle
very rashly and negligently and at a very
high speed, all of sudden, a vehicle came
on the way. The driver had lost his control
over the steering of the vehicle and dashed
with the tree. In this accident, the deceased
sustained serious injuries and died on
08.10.2005.

3. Heard Shri Hari Pratap Gupta,
learned counsel for the appellants and Shri
Ankur Melhotra, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company. However, none is
present for respondent owner and driver.

4. The owner's presence is not
necessary as the Insurance Company has
already deposited the amount awarded by the
Tribunal. They have acquiesced to the award.
Which means that they have accepted that
accident took place on 07.10.2005 and Ajeet
Kumar, who was 24 years of age, died out of
vehicular injuries. The claimants filed claim
petition claiming that the deceased was a
trained electrician, who left behind his widow
of 22 years and parents who were totally
dependent on him of age 52 and 48 years.

5. It is submitted that in the year
2005, deceased was trained electrician, the
Tribunal took the income as mentioned for
notional income under the second schedule,
which according to learned counsel for the
appellant could not have been done. That
the accident occurred in the year 2005 and
the decision was prior to the judgement of
Sarla
Verma
Vs.
Delhi
Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, no
amount towards future loss of income was
granted. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 for
personal expenses of the deceased. The
Tribunal granted multiplier of 17 and as the
deceased did not die on the same day and
was hospitalized, granted a sum of
Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses and
granted Rs.9,500/- under the non pecuniary
damages. This amount of Rs.1,89,500/- was
to be paid by the respondents jointly and
severally with 6% interest. It is this
compensation which has aggrieved the
appellants.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellants that the Apex Court in
Smt. Meena Pawaia & others Vs. Ashraf
Ali and others 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694
has held that the Tribunals are supposed to
consider the potential of a person to earn
and a recent judgement of the Apex Court
under Section 163A for the death of child
of seven years in the year 2004 has held
that his notional income should be
Rs.25,000/- per annum. In our case, the
deceased was a trained electrician and was
running his business as a vocation of
electrician and, therefore, we consider his
income to be Rs.3000/- per month. It is
requested that the amount be considered to
be Rs.3000/- per month. It is submitted by
learned counsel for the appellants that even
in the year of accident the Apex Court had
held that future loss of income would be
5 All. Smt. Seema Devi & Ors. Vs. Haribansh & Ors.
333
admissible, therefore, he claims as 40% of
said amount.

7. As far as deduction for personal
expenses is concerned, there is no dispute
between the parties. As far as the multiplier
of 17 is concerned, there is a dispute and it
should be 18 according to the learned
counsel for the appellants as the Tribunal
has applied multiplier as per for the
schedule, the schedule, according to the
counsel, is now re-visited in Sarla Verma
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
SCC 121 Judgement and hence, according
to him, the multiplier should be 18. It is
submitted that the medical expenses as
granted may not be enhanced as there are
no vouchers, which show that the amount
granted Rs.10,000/- was paid. As far as non
pecuniary damages are concerned, it is
submitted that this Court may consider the
judgement
of
National
Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and
Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and
another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and
another, 2021 (4) TAC 673 (Supreme
Court).

8. As against this, learned counsel
Shri Ankur
Mehrotra,
appearing
for
insurance company has submitted that the
Tribunal in the year 2005 has rightly
considered
the
annual
income
to
Rs.15,000/- per annum as there is no
documentary evidence was produced. The
evidence of PWs-1 & 2 also did not lay
down any foundation that income was more
than Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is further
submitted that in the year of accident the
prospective income were not to be
considered as Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle
rules, 1998 was silent and amended them in
the
year
2011.
They
cannot
be
retrospectively made effective and as far as
multiplier is concerned, the learned counsel
states that as per the judgement in Sarla
Verma (supra). As far as rate of interest is
concerned, learned counsel states that the
matter is remain pending before this Court
may consider grant of interest as per the
repo rates.

9. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties in view of the three latest
decision of the Apex Court mentioned
herein above namely, Smt. Meena Pawaia
& others Vs. Ashraf Ali and others 2021
0 Supreme (SC) 694, Basanti Devi and
Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and
another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and
another, 2021 (4) TAC 673 (Supreme
Court) case wherein the Apex Court has
considered the notional income of a minor
of seven years in the year 2004 to be
Rs.25,000/- per annum. We consider the
income of Rs.36,000/- per annum plus
40%. We are relying on the judgement of
Pranay Sethi (supra) that it is made
applicable retrospectively also and 1/3
would be deducted. The multiplier would
be 18. We grant lump-sum Rs.70,000/- as
per Pranay Sethi (supra) judgement plus as
five years have elapsed the income 10% for
every three year. Hence, we round up
Rs.30,000/-. As it has been rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the insurance
company
that
they
have
conciliated
therefore, rate of interest is not enhanced,
should be also 6%. rate of interest.

10. Hence, the total compensation, in
view of the above discussions, payable to
the appellants-claimants is being computed
herein below:

i.

Annual
Income
Rs.3,000/- x 12 Rs.36,000/
-
ii. Percenta Rs.36,000 /- x Rs.14,400/
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

ge
towards
FutureProspect
s (40%)
40%
-
iii.

Total
Income

Rs. 36,000 /- +
Rs.14,400/-
Rs.50,400/
-
iv.

Income
after
deductio
n of 1/3
Rs.50,400/-
-
Rs.16,800/-
Rs.33,600/
-
v.

Multipli
er
applicab
le
18

vi. Loss of
depende
ncy
Rs.33,600/-
x
18
Rs.6,04,80
0/-
vii
.

Amount
under
Nonpecuniar
y Heads
Rs.30,000/-
+Rs.70,000/-
Rs.1,00,00
0/-
ix. Total
Compe
nsation
Rs.6,04,800/-
+Rs.1,00,000/-
Rs.7,04,00
0/-

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
insurance company shall deposit the
additional amount within a period of 12
weeks from today with interest at the rate
of 6% 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.

12. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case
of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
[2007(2) GLH 291] and this High
Court if 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 any
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 but 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.

13. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court
in
Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance Company Privae Ltd. vs.
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. Since
long time has elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Bank Account
of claimant(s) in a nationalized Bank.
----------
5 All. Shailesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
335
(2022)05ILR A335
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 97 of 2019

Shailesh Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jai Shanker Misra, Sri Vijai Shanker
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Land Law - The U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 - Section 234(3) - U.P. Land Record
Manual
-
manner
and
procedure to
maintain the land records - in force on the
date of commencement of the Revenue
Code, 2006 - shall continue to remain in
force - to the extent they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of the
Revenue
Code,
2006
until
amended
rescinded or repealed by any regulations
made under this Section - The Revenue
Code Rules, 2016 - only a person who has
suffered from some legal injury can
challenge the Act/orders/Rules etc. in a
Court of law - rule of locus standi in PIL -
no
rigid
litmus
test
-
Courts
are
empowered to examine the case on
settled parameters - dominant object of
PIL - to ensure the observance of the
provisions of the Constitution or the Law,
which can be best achieved to advance the
cause of a community or disadvantaged
groups. (Para -9,19 )

(B) PIL- "Public Interest" - Something in
which the public, the community at large,
has some pecuniary interest, or some
interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected - does not mean
anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or
as the interests of the particular localities,
which may be affected by the matters in
question - Interest shared by citizens
generally in affairs of local, State or
national Government. (Para -10,11 )

(C) PIL - Public interest litigation is a
weapon - to be used with great care and
circumspection - judiciary has to be
extremely careful to see that behind the
beautiful veil of public interest an ugly
private malice, vested interest and/or
publicity seeking is not lurking - used as
an effective weapon in the armory of law
for delivering social justice to the citizens
- aimed at redressal of genuine public
wrong or public injury and not publicity
oriented
or
founded
on
personal
vendetta.(Para - 14,15)
Petition filed - declaring the U.P. Land Record
Manual as ultra-vires the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, and the Revenue Code Rules, 2016

HELD:-Petition non maintainabe in view of the
fact that Section 234(3) of the U.P. Revenue
Code,
2006,
itself
takes
care
of
the
inconsistency of the Land Record Manual and
upholds it only to the extent it is not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Revenue
Code, 2006.(Para -20 )

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Janata Dal Vs H.S. Chowdhary & ors., (1992)
4 SCC 305

2. Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs St. of W.B., 2004 (3)
SCC 349

3. BALCO Employees Union (Regd) Vs U.O.I. &
rs., (2002) 2 SCC 333

4. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee
& anr. Vs C.K. Rajan & ors. ,(2003) 7 SCC 546

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)