# Smt. Shashibala & Ors v. Jogindra Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 477
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-31
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 2651 of 2017
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shashibala-ors-v-jogindra-singh-ors-47435
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha

Motor Vehicle Accident Claim-issue of
negligence in dispute-Motorcyclist was on the
correct side because the road ws broad-nothing
on record that driver of the Car had taken all
kind
of
caution-negligence
of
deceased
quantified at 10% and not 25%.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All Smt. Shashibala & Ors. Vs. Jogindra Singh & Ors.
477
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.

12. 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
award and 6% thereafter till the amount is
deposited. The amount already deposited
be deducted from the amount to be
deposited.

13.

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.

14. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the Tribunal.
----------
(2021)09ILR A477
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2021

BEFORE

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

FAFO No. 2651 of 2017

Smt. Shashibala & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Jogindra Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri J.B. Singh, Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, Sri
Vageesh Pandey, Sri S.K. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha

Motor Vehicle Accident Claim-issue of
negligence in dispute-Motorcyclist was on the
correct side because the road ws broad-nothing
on record that driver of the Car had taken all
kind
of
caution-negligence
of
deceased
quantified at 10% and not 25%.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050

2. National Innsurance Co. Ltd. Vs Birender &
ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 242-243 of 2020 decided
on 13.1.2020

3. Sandeep Khanduja Vs Atul Dande & ors.,
(2017) 3 SCC (Crl) 178

4. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050

5.National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Luv Kush &
anr., FAFO No.199 of 2017
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Vs Smt. Renu Singh & ors., First Appeal
From Order No. 1818 of 2012 decided on
19.7.2016

7. Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
& ors., 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469 h

8. Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs Bidhyadhar Dutta
& ors., TAC 2006 (1) 969

9. Rajesh Ji Verma Vs Abhineet Kesharwani,
2008 (2) TAC 40

10. Archit Saini Vs Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 365

11. National Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050

12.
Sarla
Verma
Vs
Delhi
Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121

13.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Shashi Sharma & ors., 2016 (4) TAC 149

14. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan &
ors.. 2013 (2) RCR(Civil) 945

15. Syed Basheer Ahmed Vs Mohammed
Jameel, 2009 ACJ 690

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

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

18.Smt.
Hansaguti
P.
Ladhani
VsThe
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in
2007(2) GLH 291

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

1. Heard Shri Sudhanshu Pandey,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for
the respondent-insurance company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment dated
22.07.2017 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional
District Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Gautam
Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.226 of
2013 awarding a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with
interest at the rate of 7% as compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal
is in dispute. The respondent concerned has
not challenged the liability imposed on
them. The issues to be decided are the
quantum of compensation awarded and
whether deceased was also negligent in
causing the accident.

4. The claimants are the legal heirs of
the deceased who died in the fateful
vehicular accident which occurred on
15.7.2013 when the deceased Ajab Sigh at
about 9.30 in the night was going on
Motorcycle No. HR 29 Q 2011 and was
returning to home (Faridabad), and when
he reached near Galgotiya University, a
Maruti Alto No. HR 51 AS 6256 being
driven rashly and negligently came and
dashed with his scooter whereby he
suffered injuries and when he was moved
to the Hospital, he succumbed to injuries.
One Harinder Singh tried to stop the Maruti
Caar but the driver fled away. Claimant
No.4, Jaipal Singh lodged the complaint.
The deceased was a Teacher in Education
Department of Haryana and his basic salary
was Rs.51,860/- p.m. The respondent Nos.
1 and 2 filed their replies and contended
that their vehicle was not involved in the
said incident. The vehicle was insured with
it is accepted by respond no.3, insurance
company but they pleaded that the vehicle
with plied in contravention of policy
condition. The tribunal framed about 9
issues. We are mainly concerned with the
9 All Smt. Shashibala & Ors. Vs. Jogindra Singh & Ors.
479
issue
of
negligence
and
dependency/compensation.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellants that the Tribunal has not
granted any amount towards future loss of
income which is required to be granted in
view of the decision titled National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC)
1050. It is further submitted that amount
under non-pecuniary heads which is
granted and the interest awarded by the
Tribunal are on the lower side and requires
enhancement. It is further submitted that as
the deceased was survived by his mother,
wife, one daughter and two sons, the
deduction towards personal expenses of the
deceased should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd as
deducted by the tribunal. In support of this
submission,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants cited the judgment of the
Supreme Court in National Innsurance
Company Limited v. Birender and
others, Civil Appeal Nos. 242-243 of 2020
decided on 13.1.2020.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has vehemently objected to the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellants and has submitted that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper and does not call for any
enhancement. The learned counsel for the
respondents has further submitted that in
light of the evidence adduced and it is
contended that the tribunal has not
committed any error as Compassionate
Assistance of full pay is given by the
Government to the heirs at least for 12
years. It is further submitted that wife
would be getting full pension, entire
amount which deceased was getting, till the
date of retirement and therefore also
requires to be deducted.

7. It is submitted by counsel for
claimants that the Supreme Court's decision
was cited before the tribunal but tribunal
has
deducted
bonus,
maintenance
allowance,
PF
and
gratuity
from
commuptable income holding that they are
not part of the salary and, therefore, the
tribunal held that the same cannot be
considered to be part of the income. The
tribunal added 40% as future loss of
income, which should be 50%. Most
unfortunately, the tribunal has considered
the judgment of Sandeep Khanduja v. Atul
Dande and Ors., (2017) 3 SCC (Crl) 178
and held that claimants can't be awarded
compensation
except
non
pecuniary
damages. The claim petition was not
moved under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act) but was moved
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 and hence, it appears that the learned
tribunal has granted multiplier of 18, but
held that as the widow would be getting
compensation till 2025 no compensation is
payable and granted Rs.1,25,000/- and
deducted 25% of the amount holding the
deceased to be also negligent.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel
for claimants that the learned Tribunal
should have gone by the judgment in
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050 and not by the rules
the tribunal ought to have been considered
the decision of this Court in FAFO No.199
of 2017, National Insurance Company
Limited v. Luv Kush and another where
in it is held that rules are not to be over
strictly followed. It is submitted that
compensation has to be as per the judgment
of Pranay Sethi's case, appellants are
entitled
to
filial
consortium,
funeral
charges,
compensation
for
love
and
affection. The judgment in Pranay Sethi
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Supra) though has been considered by the
learned tribunal, he has misguided himself
by relying on Rule 4 of the U.P. State
Motor Vehicle Rules, 2011 which could not
be done.

9. Heard the learned counsels for the
parties. The issue of negligence has to be
decided from the perspective of the law laid
down.

10. The term negligence means failure
to exercise care towards others which a
reasonable and prudent person would in a
circumstance. Negligence can be both
intentional or accidental which can also be
accidental.
More
particularly,
term
negligence connotes reckless driving and
the injured of claimants must always prove
that the either side is negligent. If the injury
rather death is caused by something owned
or controlled by the negligent party then he
is directly liable otherwise the principle of
"res ipsa loquitur" meaning thereby "the
things speak for itself" would apply.

11. The principle of contributory
negligence has been discussed time and
again. A person who either contributes or is
author of the accident would be liable for
his contribution to the accident having
taken place.

12. The Division Bench of this Court
in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of
2012 ( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And
Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as
under :

"16. Negligence means failure to
exercise required degree of care and
caution expected of a prudent driver.
Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided upon the
considerations, which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is not always a question of direct evidence.
It is an inference to be drawn from proved
facts. Negligence is not an absolute term,
but is a relative one. It is rather a
comparative term. What may be negligence
in one case may not be so in another.
Where there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no
legal consequence. Where there is a duty to
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen likely to
caused physical injury to person. The
degree of care required, of course, depends
upon facts in each case. On these broad
principles, the negligence of drivers is
required to be assessed.

17. It would be seen that burden
of proof for contributory negligence on the
part of deceased has to be discharged by
the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident. It
is well settled law that at intersection
where two roads cross each other, it is the
duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down
and if driver did not slow down at
intersection, but continued to proceed at a
high speed without caring to notice that
another vehicle was crossing, then the
conduct of driver necessarily leads to
conclusion that vehicle was being driven by
him rashly as well as negligently.

18. 10th Schedule appended to
Motor
Vehicle
Act
contain
statutory
regulations for driving of motor vehicles
which also form part of every Driving
License. Clause-6 of such Regulation
clearly directs that the driver of every
motor vehicle to slow down vehicle at every
intersection or junction of roads or at a
turning of the road. It is also provided that
9 All Smt. Shashibala & Ors. Vs. Jogindra Singh & Ors.
481
driver of the vehicle should not enter
intersection or junction of roads unless he
makes sure that he would not thereby
endanger
any
other
person.
Merely,
because driver of the Truck was driving
vehicle on the left side of road would not
absolve him from his responsibility to slow
down vehicle as he approaches intersection
of roads, particularly when he could have
easily seen, that the car over which
deceased was riding, was approaching
intersection.

19. In view of the fast and
constantly increasing volume of traffic,
motor vehicles upon roads may be
regarded to some extent as coming within
the principle of liability defined in Rylands
V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From
the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of
this country have been rendered by the use
of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit
and run' cases where drivers of motor
vehicles who have caused accidents, are
unknown. In fact such cases are increasing
in number. Where a pedestrian without
negligence on his part is injured or killed
by a motorist, whether negligently or not,
he or his legal representatives, as the case
may be, should be entitled to recover
damages if principle of social justice
should have any meaning at all.

20. These provisions (sec.110A
and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not
merely
procedural
provisions.
They
substantively affect the rights of the parties.
The right of action created by Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species,
new in its quality, new in its principles. In
every way it was new. The right given to
legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file
an application for compensation for death
due to a motor vehicle accident is an
enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged
in by limitations of an action under Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and
new dangers require new strategies and
new remedies.

21. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that even if
courts may not by interpretation displace
the principles of law which are considered
to be well settled and, therefore, court
cannot dispense with proof of negligence
altogether in all cases of motor vehicle
accidents, it is possible to develop the law
further on the following lines; when a
motor
vehicle
is
being
driven
with
reasonable care, it would ordinarily not
meet with an accident and, therefore, rule
of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence
may be invoked in motor accident cases
with greater frequency than in ordinary
civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in
Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005
0 ACJ(SC) 1840).

22. By the above process, the
burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on
the defendants in a motor accident claim
petition to prove that motor vehicle was
being driven with reasonable care or that
there is equal negligence on the part the
other side."
emphasis added

13. The Apex Court in Khenyei Vs.
New India Assurance Company Limited
& Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469 has
held as under:

"4. It is a case of composite
negligence where injuries have been
caused to the claimants by combined
wrongful act of joint tort feasors. In a case
of accident caused by negligence of joint
tort feasors, all the persons who aid or
counsel or direct or join in committal of a
wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the
liability is always joint and several. The
extent of negligence of joint tort feasors in
such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need
not be determined by the by the court.
However, in case all the joint tort feasors
are before the court, it may determine the
extent of their liability for the purpose of
adjusting inter-se equities between them at
appropriate stage. The liability of each and
every joint tort feasor vis a vis to
plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it
is joint and several liability. In the case of
composite negligence, apportionment of
compensation between tort feasors for
making payment to the plaintiff is not
permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the
right to recover the entire amount from the
easiest targets/solvent defendant.

14. There is a difference between
contributory and composite negligence. In
the case of contributory negligence, a
person who has himself contributed to the
extent cannot claim compensation for the
injuries sustained by him in the accident to
the extent of his own negligence;whereas in
the case of composite negligence, a person
who has suffered has not contributed to the
accident but the outcome of combination of
negligence of two or more other persons.
This Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan
& Ors. [2008 (3) SCC 748] has held that in
case of contributory negligence, injured
need
not
establish
the
extent
of
responsibility
of
each
wrong
doer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrong doer separately. It is only in the case
of contributory negligence that the injured
himself has contributed by his negligence
in the accident. Extent of his negligence is
required to be determined as damages
recoverable by him in respect of the
injuries have to be reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence. The relevant
portion is extracted hereunder :

"6. 'Composite negligence' refers
to the negligence on the part of two or
more persons. Where a person is injured as
a result of negligence on the part of two or
more wrong doers, it is said that the person
was injured on account of the composite
negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a
case, each wrong doer, is jointly and
severally liable to the injured for payment
of the entire damages and the injured
person has the choice of proceeding
against all or any of them. In such a case,
the injured need not establish the extent of
responsibility
of
each
wrong-doer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrong-doer separately. On the other hand
where a person suffers injury, partly due to
the negligence on the part of another
person or persons, and partly as a result of
his own negligence, then the negligence of
the part of the injured which contributed to
the accident is referred to as his
contributory negligence. Where the injured
is guilty of some negligence, his claim for
damages is not defeated merely by reason
of the negligence on his part but the
damages recoverable by him in respect of
the injuries stands reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence.

7. Therefore, when two vehicles
are involved in an accident, and one of the
drivers claims compensation from the other
driver alleging negligence, and the other
driver denies negligence or claims that the
injured claimant himself was negligent,
then it becomes necessary to consider
whether the injured claimant was negligent
and if so, whether he was solely or partly
responsible for the accident and the extent
of his responsibility, that is his contributory
negligence. Therefore where the injured is
himself partly liable, the principle of
'composite negligence' will not apply nor
can there be an automatic inference that
the negligence was 50:50 as has been
assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to
9 All Smt. Shashibala & Ors. Vs. Jogindra Singh & Ors.
483
have examined the extent of contributory
negligence of the appellant and thereby
avoided
confusion
between
composite
negligence and contributory negligence.
The High Court has failed to correct the
said error."emphasis added

14. The latest decision of the Apex
Court in Khenyei (Supra) has laid down
one further aspect about considering the
negligence
more
particularly
composite/contributory
negligence.
The
deceased or the person concerned should be
shown to have contributed either to the
accident and the impact of accident upon
the victim could have been minimised if he
had taken care.

15. The findings of fact that the
accident occurred due to contribution of
both drivers is to be evaluated on aforesaid
principles. The tribunal comes to the
conclusion that from the evidence educed,
it can't be presumed or held that the
motorcyclist was on wrong-side. The
learned tribunal has come to the conclusion
that as it was a head on conclusion and so
both the drivers would have contributed in
the accident taking place for which the
tribunal relied on the decisions titled Bijoy
Kumar Dugar vs. Bidhyadhar Dutta and
others, TAC 2006 (1) 969 and Rajesh Ji
Verma v. Abhineet Kesharwani, 2008 (2)
TAC 40. The said judgements would not
apply as two vehicles of unequal magnitude
were involved in the accident in the case on
hand. The motorcyclist was on the correctside just because the road was broad
enough, it cannot be said that he did not
take any care or caution to avert the
accident from taking place. Nothing is
brought on record that the driver of the
Maruti Caar had taken all kinds of caution.
It is proved that the driver of the
motorcycle
cannot be
said
to
have
contributed in accident having taken place.
The judgment of Supreme Court in the
decision of Archit Saini v. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC
365, which has considered the principles of
negligence will also come to the aid of the
appellants herein. The reason being the
detail analyses of facts would go to show
that the driver of Maruti Car was at fault.
The sight plan filed along with the charge
sheet will not support the finding recorded
by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the
owner or driver of the vehicle namely
Maruti Caar did not appear before the
tribunal. The Negligence of deceased is
quantified at 10% and not 25%.

Compensation

16. Having heard the counsels for the
parties and considered the factual data, the
accident occurred on 15.7.2013 causing
death of Ajab Singh who was 41 years of
age and left behind him, wife, one
daughter, two young sons and mother. The
Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased to be Rs.50,360- per month. The
deceased was a government employee. The
income according to counsel for appellants
has not been properly calculated. It is
submitted
that
the
deceased
was
Government employee even if we consider
the income of the deceased in the year 2013
and even if we go by the judgments of the
Apex Court wherein it has been held that
income as on date of accident would be
applicable. It is submitted that income has
to be considered to be Rs.51,860/- per
month, which we feel is just and proper. To
which as the deceased was in the age
bracket of 41-45 years, 30% of the income
will have to be added as future loss of
prospects in view of the decision of the
Apex
Court
in
National
Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. As
far as deduction towards personal expenses
of the deceased is concerned, it should be
1/4th as the deceased was a married. The
Tribunal considered the multiplier of 14
which is maintained as per the decision in
Sarla
Verma
Vs.
Delhi
Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 will have
to be followed.

17. Tribunal has considered the
judgment of Supreme Court in Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Shashi
Sharma and others, 2016 (4) TAC 149 and
held that the family mainly the widow would
as per the rules will receive a sum, which will
aggregate to upto 2025 Rs. 67,28,256/- for a
period of 12 years which will not permit us to
disturb the findings as far non entitlement of
amount for twelve years. The deceased was
in the age group of 41-45 years and hence an
additional multiplier of 14. Hence we would
grant a multiplier of 2 which is not granted by
the tribunal. Income of the deceased was
Rs.51,860/- p.m. to which multiplied by 12
and 1/4 would have to be deducted for
personal expenses of deceased. The legal
representative mainly the wife receiving a
sum of Rs.67,28,256/- upto 2025. We grant
multiplier of 2 as is rightly pointed out by
Shri P. K. Sinha, learned counsel for
insurance
company
that
under
the
compensatory jurisdiction, it cannot be
windfall but must be commensurate with the
amount which a family has to receive. The
tribunal had already granted Rs.1,00,000/- for
non pecuniary damages and Rs.25,000/- for
funeral charges which also is not disturbed.
The tribunal has not taken into consideration
the judgment of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. Vs.
Kishore Dan & Ors. 2013 (2) RCR(Civil)
945
and
Syed
Basheer
Ahmed
v.
Mohammed Jameel, 2009 ACJ 690.

18. The total 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.51,860 /- p.m.

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 30% namely Rs.15,558/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 51,860 +
Rs.15,558 = Rs.67,418/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/4
: Rs.50564/-

v. Annual income : Rs.50,564 x
2x12 = Rs.12,13,536/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 14 (as
the deceased was in the age bracket of 4145 years), but as the family is to get
compensated for 12 years (only 2 years loss
is granted).

vii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : Rs.1,25,000/-

viii.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.13,38,536/-

19. 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."
9 All Bhism Singh & Anr. Vs. Mangal Singh & Anr.
485

20. 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 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.

21. 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 may be.

22. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
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, the TDS can't be deducted
on amount of compensation. Registry of the
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)
while disbursing the amount.

23.

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 direct investment of
amount. The same is to be applied looking
to the facts of each case.

24. The amount shall be disbursed in
equal proposition but amount of minor
children if any now be kept in Fixed
Deposit upto 2025 and then be released.

25. This Court is thankful to both the
counsels to see that the matter is disposed
of.

26. The record be sent back to the
Tribunal.
----------
(2021)09ILR A485
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

FAFO No. 2832 of 2012

Bhism Singh & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Mangal Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Anurag Sharma