# Smt. Shaily @ Sarla & Ors v. Parmeshwari Dayal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 724
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-22
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1083 of 2016
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shaily-sarla-ors-v-parmeshwari-dayal-ors-48580
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Quantum of Compensation - Income -
deceased was 36 years of age, well
educated
&
was
serving
as
Deputy
Manager (Purchase) at M/s. D.M.C.L.
Sugar Factory, Loni - income of deceased
was Rs. 36,653/- per month - Tribunal
committed error in considering the income
of deceased to be Rs.14,806 - Held -
amount of provident fund and insurance
claim cannot be deducted as they have no
co-relation - Except superannuation head,
there cannot be any deduction under
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act -
basic
salary
i.e.
15,275/-
+
special
allowances Rs.1500 + HRA Rs.7638/- +
Education
allowance
Rs.800/-
+
conveyance allowance Rs.2055/- + PF
Rs.1833/- and Gratuity Rs.734/- in total
Rs.29835/- (Rs.30,000/- rounded figure)
would be admissible (Para 6)
B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Quantum
of
Compensation
-
Future
prospects
-
deceased
being
salaried
person and was below the age of 40 years,
50% future prospects will be added -
Deduction for personal and Living expense
- deceased was survived by a minor son
and a minor daughter, hence, deduction of
1/3 and multiplier of 15 - Non pecuniary
heads - claimants would be entitled to Rs.
1,00,000/- under non-pecuniary damages
and Rs. 50,000/- each to the minor
children who lost their father is granted
for loss love and affection - interest
should be 7.5% - respondent-Insurance
Company to deposit the amount with
interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date
of filing of the claim petition till the
amount is deposited - order of investment
is
not
passed
because
applicants
/claimants are neither illiterate or rustic
villagers - amount be deposited in the
Saving
Account
of
claimants
in
Nationalized Bank without F.D.R. (Para 7,
8, 10, 16 )
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

25.

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 not blindly apply the judgment
of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be
applied looking to the facts of each case.

26. 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 7 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."

27. In view of the above, the appeal is
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.

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

29. Record be sent back to court
below forthwith, if any.

30. We are thankful to learned
counsels for parties for ably assisting the
Court.
----------
(2022)05ILR A724
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1083 of 2016

Smt. Shaily @ Sarla & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Parmeshwari Dayal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Nomman Rajvanshi, Sri Archit Mehrotra,
Sri Naman Rajvanshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Krishna Shanker Chaudhary
5 All. Smt. Shaily @ Sarla & Ors. Vs. Parmeshwari Dayal & Ors.
725
A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Quantum of Compensation - Income -
deceased was 36 years of age, well
educated
&
was
serving
as
Deputy
Manager (Purchase) at M/s. D.M.C.L.
Sugar Factory, Loni - income of deceased
was Rs. 36,653/- per month - Tribunal
committed error in considering the income
of deceased to be Rs.14,806 - Held -
amount of provident fund and insurance
claim cannot be deducted as they have no
co-relation - Except superannuation head,
there cannot be any deduction under
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act -
basic
salary
i.e.
15,275/-
+
special
allowances Rs.1500 + HRA Rs.7638/- +
Education
allowance
Rs.800/-
+
conveyance allowance Rs.2055/- + PF
Rs.1833/- and Gratuity Rs.734/- in total
Rs.29835/- (Rs.30,000/- rounded figure)
would be admissible (Para 6)
B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Quantum
of
Compensation
-
Future
prospects
-
deceased
being
salaried
person and was below the age of 40 years,
50% future prospects will be added -
Deduction for personal and Living expense
- deceased was survived by a minor son
and a minor daughter, hence, deduction of
1/3 and multiplier of 15 - Non pecuniary
heads - claimants would be entitled to Rs.
1,00,000/- under non-pecuniary damages
and Rs. 50,000/- each to the minor
children who lost their father is granted
for loss love and affection - interest
should be 7.5% - respondent-Insurance
Company to deposit the amount with
interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date
of filing of the claim petition till the
amount is deposited - order of investment
is
not
passed
because
applicants
/claimants are neither illiterate or rustic
villagers - amount be deposited in the
Saving
Account
of
claimants
in
Nationalized Bank without F.D.R. (Para 7,
8, 10, 16 )
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:
1. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs. Kishore Dan & ors.,
2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.)

2.
General
Manager,
Kerala
S.R.T.C
Vs
Susamma Thomas 1994 AIR 1631

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

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

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

6. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Vs U.O.I. & ors. dt 27.1.202

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

1. Heard Sri Naman Rajvanshi,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Krishna
Shanker
Chaudhary,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-Insurance
Company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the award dated
19.11.2015 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
Court
No.8,
Ghaziabad
(hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.
474 of 2009 granting sum of Rs.
18,06,750/- with 7% simple interest.

3. The learned Counsel for appellants
has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in
not following the mandate of judicial
precedents and Rule 220 of U.P. Motor
Vehicle
Rules
while
computing
the
compensation admissible to the legal heirs
of deceased who comprise of widow, minor
son of 11 years and daughter of 9 years.
The deceased was 36 years of age and was
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
serving as Deputy Manager (Purchase) at
M/s. D.M.C.L. Sugar Factory, Loni. The
income of deceased was Rs. 36,653/- per
month. It is further submitted that the
Tribunal
has
committed
error
in
considering the income of deceased to be
Rs.14,806/-.
The
Tribunal
has
not
considered for granting future loss of
income. The learned Counsel further
submits
that
deduction
for
personal
expenses and multiplier need not be
disturbed. The learned counsel submits that
the amount granted for non-pecuniary
damages is on lower side and needs
recalculation.

4. It is submitted that the deceased
was
working
as
Deputy
Manager
(Purchase) at D.S.C.L., Sugar Factory,
Loni,
from
where
he
was
getting
Rs.36,653/- per month, but the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal by taking hyper
technical view only considered the basic
salary to compute the compensation.

5. Sri K.S. Chaudhary appearing for
the Insurance company has heavily relied
on the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Vimal Kanwar and others Vs.
Kishore Dan and others, 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6
(S.C.) so as to contend that the income of
the deceased cannot be Rs.36,563/-.

6. Learned Tribunal with profound
respect has considered the income of the
deceased to be Rs. 14,806/- per month. The
deceased was a person who was well
educated and was Deputy Manager. The
reasoning given for deductions are not
germane. The judgment of Vimal Kanwar
(supra) is relied on by both the Counsels.
The amount of provident fund and
insurance claim cannot be deducted as they
have no co-relation. Except superannuation
head, there cannot be any deduction under
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Hence, we are holding that basic salary i.e.
15,275/- + special allowances Rs.1500 +
HRA Rs.7638/- + Education allowance
Rs.800/-
+
conveyance
allowance
Rs.2055/- + PF Rs.1833/- and Gratuity
Rs.734/- in total Rs.29835/- (Rs.30,000/-
rounded figure) would be admissible. The
Tribunal has fallen in error in not
considering the income of Rs.30,000/- per
month. We are unable to accept the
submission of learned counsel for the
respondent
that
income
should
be
considered at Rs. 14,806/-. The income of
the deceased would have been non-taxable
as Rs. 30,300/- in the year of accident he
would be entitled to all the deductions and,
therefore, there was no TDS deducted by
the employer also and nothing has been
brought on record that he was a tax payee.
Hence, that amount cannot be deducted.
Deduction of certain allowances namely
executive
allowance,
books
and
periodicals,
medical
expenses,
LTA,
Superannuation,
Furniture
(Hard),
Furniture (Soft) is not in dispute.

7. The Tribunal has not granted any
amount towards future loss of income. The
Tribunal has not assigned any reason as to
why the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra)
will not be applicable. Hence, deceased
being salaried person and was below the
age of 40 years, 50% future prospects will
be added in view of the decision in Pranay
Sethi (Supra). We are fortified in our view
by the decision of the Apex Court in
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs
Susamma Thomas 1994 AIR 1631 and
Rule 220 of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules,
1998.

8. Further, the deceased was survived
by a minor son and a minor daughter,
hence, deduction of 1/3 and multiplier of
5 All. Smt. Shaily @ Sarla & Ors. Vs. Parmeshwari Dayal & Ors.
727
15 granted by the Tribunal is maintained.
The claimants would be entitled to Rs.
1,00,000/- under non-pecuniary damages
and Rs. 50,000/- each to the minor children
who lost their father is granted for loss love
and affection.

9. Hence, the compensation payable
to the appellants in view of the decision of
the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is
computed herein below:

i. Income Rs.30,000/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 50% namely Rs.15,000/-

iii. Total income : Rs.30,000 +
15,000 = Rs. 45,000/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/3rd : Rs. 30,000/-

v. Annual income : Rs.30,000 x
12 = Rs.3,60,000/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 15

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.3,60,000 x 15 = Rs. 54,00,000/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : Rs.1,00,000/- + 50,000 + 50,000/- =
Rs.2,00,000/-

ix. Total compensation : Rs.
56,00,000/-

10. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, the interest 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."

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

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
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. 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 with interest at the
rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the amount is deposited
within a period of 12 weeks from today.
The
amount
already
deposited
be
deducted
from
the
amount
to
be
deposited.

15.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein.

16. 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 12 years have
elapsed, the amount be deposited in the
Saving
Account
of
claimants
in
Nationalized Bank without F.D.R.

17. This Court is thankful to both the
counsels to see that this very old matter is
disposed of.
----------
(2022)05ILR A728
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1182 of 1992

M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Jai Laxmi Singh & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri K.S. Amist

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vijay Kumar Bist, Sri G.K. Singh, Sri
N.I. Jafri, Sri R.K. Pandey, Sri S.D.Ojha, Sri
S.K. Mishra, Sri S.K. Shukla, Sri S.N.
Srivastava, Sri Manoj Kumar

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Sections 147, 148, 149 & 157 - Claim
petition - Breach of policy - Vehicle was
sold and new owner got the vehicle
registered as a vehicle to be used for
commercial purpose without intimating
the Insurance Co. - Effect - Owner would
be liable to the insurance Co. for the
deliberate wrong in not disclosing the fact
as otherwise they would have been liable
to pay a higher premium which they have
not paid - Held, the breach of policy
would fall within the scope of Section 147
of Act, 1988 though not a breach under
Section 149 of Act, 1988 - There is a
breach of policy, a duty is cast on the
subsequent purchaser to convey to the
insurance
Co.
any
change
in
the
registration of the vehicle - Insurance Co.
was given liberty to recover the amount,
already deposited as per the order of this
Court, from both the owners. (Para 13 and
14)