# Smt. Sheela Devi & Ors v. Shri Sumit Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 871
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-18
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1080 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sheela-devi-ors-v-shri-sumit-kumar-ors-48667
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166, 168 & 173 - Motor Accident
claim - Negligence - one Magic loader
suddenly
dashed
deceased
who
was
driving his own car on correct side - Held
- vehicle driven by the deceased also
crossed the white mark, however driver of
the bigger vehicle was suppose to take
more caution is cardinal principle of law of
negligence - driver of the offending
vehicle has not stepped into the witness
box so as to testify as in what manner, the
accident took place - negligence of the
deceased can be attributed 30% as the
speed of the bigger vehicle was much
more than the speed of car when it dashed
with the vehicle driven by deceased and it
pushed the vehicle behind. (Para 12, 13)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166, 168 & 173 - Motor Accident
claim - Income - Deceased income Rs.
405994 per year as per the income tax
return of year preceding the accident or of
the year when accident occurred- Tribunal
misdirected itself in not considering the
income tax return and decided that the
deceased was earning Rs.358676 which
was the mean of three years - Held - court
considered deceased income to be Rs.
400000 per annum as per the income tax
returns. (Para 16)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

## Text

6 All. Smt. Sheela Devi & Ors. Vs. Shri Sumit Kumar & Ors.
871
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 without
F.D.R.

19. We request the Registrar General
to circulate a copy of this judgement as we
have relied on the recent guidelines issued
by the Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz (Supra)
and the recent judgment of Gujarat High
Court The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
(TDS),
R/Special
Civil
Application
No.4800 of 2021 decided on 05.04.2022.

20. We also request the Registrar
General to send the copy of this judgment
to the concerned Judge, if he still in
service, so that he may not commit such
mistakes in future, which are so apparent
that it burdens the High Court.
----------
(2022)06ILR A871
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1080 of 2021

Smt. Sheela Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Shri Sumit Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shreesh Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Kumar

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166, 168 & 173 - Motor Accident
claim - Negligence - one Magic loader
suddenly
dashed
deceased
who
was
driving his own car on correct side - Held
- vehicle driven by the deceased also
crossed the white mark, however driver of
the bigger vehicle was suppose to take
more caution is cardinal principle of law of
negligence - driver of the offending
vehicle has not stepped into the witness
box so as to testify as in what manner, the
accident took place - negligence of the
deceased can be attributed 30% as the
speed of the bigger vehicle was much
more than the speed of car when it dashed
with the vehicle driven by deceased and it
pushed the vehicle behind. (Para 12, 13)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166, 168 & 173 - Motor Accident
claim - Income - Deceased income Rs.
405994 per year as per the income tax
return of year preceding the accident or of
the year when accident occurred- Tribunal
misdirected itself in not considering the
income tax return and decided that the
deceased was earning Rs.358676 which
was the mean of three years - Held - court
considered deceased income to be Rs.
400000 per annum as per the income tax
returns. (Para 16)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

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

2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Somwati &
ors., 2020 LawSuit ( SC) 559

3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sangita & ors.,
2020 LawSuit(SC) 559

4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Venu Singh & ors., 2016 [3] LawSuit (All) 4465

5. Kumari Kiran & ors. Vs Sajjan Singh & ors.,
2014 LawSuit (SC) 827

6. Sangita Arya & ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. & ors., (2020) 5 SCC 327
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Somwati &
ors., 2020 LawSuit ( SC) 559

8. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corp., (2009)
6 SCC 121

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

10. Renu Rani Shrivastava Vs New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR (2019) 5719

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

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

13. Smt. Hansagauri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291

14. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
U.O.I. & ors. dated 27.1.2022

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

1. Heard Sri Shreesh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondent, none appears for the owner and
perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment/award
dated 30.3.2021 and the decree dated
3.4.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/ Presiding Officer , Kanpur Nagar
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
M.A.C.No.1014 of 2016 awarding a sum of
Rs.19,77,831/- 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 has not
challenged the liability imposed on them.
The issues to be decided by this Court are,
the quantum of compensation awarded and
negligence.

4. Brief facts of the present case are
that on 7.5.2016 at about 2:30 p.m, near
village Gopalpur, one Magic loader vehicle
bearing number U.P.-71 B-9992 was
coming from Kanpur side suddenly dashed
Gyan Prakash @ Gyan Prakash Uttam who
driving his own car on correct side and was
plying the vehicle forwards Kanpur from
Jahanabad in district Fatehpur. He received
several injuries from the aforesaid accident
and thereafter he was taken to C.H.C.
Bhitargoan there he was declared dead. He
died on 7.5.2016 due to the injuries
received in the aforesaid motor traffic
accident.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant that the deceased was 48
years of age at the time of accident and was
in the business of dealing in Jwellery and
was having his shop. His income was
considered
by
the
Tribunal
to
be
Rs.3,58,676/- per year which according to
the counsel for the appellant is on the lower
side and should be considered at least
Rs.4,05,994/- per year as per the income
tax return of year preceding the accident or
of the year when accident occurred. It is
further submitted that the Tribunal has
granted amount towards future loss of
income of the deceased which is on lower
side and should be granted in view of the
decision in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,
2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and Rule
220(i) of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998.
It is further submitted that the amount
granted under non-pecuniary damages are
on the lower side requires enhancement in
view of the decision of New India
Assurance Company Limited Vs. Somwati
and others, 2020 LawSuit ( SC) 559.
6 All. Smt. Sheela Devi & Ors. Vs. Shri Sumit Kumar & Ors.
873
Learned counsel for the appellant further
submits that the ocular version of PW-2 is
categorical that the road was 12'5 feet wide
and, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal
that the deceased had contributed 50% to
the accident is bad and the facts prove
otherwise.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
has heavily relied on the decisions of (a)
Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Vs.
Sangita
and
others,
2020
LawSuit(SC) 559, (b) Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Venu Singh and others, 2016
LawSuit (All) 4465, (c) Kumari Kiran
and others Vs. Sajjan Singh and others,
2014 LawSuit (SC) 827 (d) Sangita Arya
and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limted and others, (2020) 5
SCC 327 and (e) New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. Somwati and
others, 2020 LawSuit ( SC) 559 so as to
contend that the Tribunal has misdirected
itself in not considering the income tax
return and decided that the deceased was
earning Rs.3,58,676/- which was the mean
of three years. Learned counsel has
contended that the vehicle driven by the
deceased was a smaller vehicle and driver
of the truck has not stepped into witness
box and therefore the finding of deceased
being co-author of accident requires
reassessment by this Court.

7. As against this, learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has submitted that
the award does not require any interference.
The accident occurred on 7.5.2016 and the
decision of the Tribunal is in consonance
with twin decisions namely, Sarla Verma
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
SCC 121 for multiplier and compensation is
calculated as per decision in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC)
1050 and therefore the Tribunal has not
committed any error in granting the non
pecuniary damages. It is further submitted
that the Tribunal has granted compensation
considering the income tax return and has
rightly taken mean of last three years for
deciding the income of deceased. The learned
counsel submitted that the evidence of
claimants
would
demonstrate
that
the
decision qua negligence does not require any
interference by this Court under Section 173
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Finding On Negligence

8. The term negligence means failure to
exercise care towards others which a
reasonable and prudent person would in a
circumstance or taking action which such a
reasonable person would not. Negligence can
be both intentional or accidental which is
normally accidental. More particularly, it
connotes reckless driving and the injured
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.

9. 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.

10. 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 :
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"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
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
6 All. Smt. Sheela Devi & Ors. Vs. Shri Sumit Kumar & Ors.
875
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

11. As far as negligence is concerned,
we are satisfied that the deceased has also
contributed to the accident having taken
place. The only question is what was the
percentage of this contribution.

12. While going through the evidence
of PW-2, we find that the vehicle driven by
the deceased has also crossed the white
mark. However, the driver of the bigger
vehicle is suppose to take more caution is
cardinal principle of law of negligence. Our
findings get support from decision of Apex
Court in Kumari Kiran and others (
supra).

13. In our case, the charge sheet and
FIR was laid against the driver of the other
offending vehicle. The driver of the
offending vehicle has not stepped into the
witness box so as to testify as in what
manner, the accident took place. The
negligence
of
the
deceased
can
be
attributed 30% as the speed of the bigger
vehicle was much more than the speed of
car when it dashed with the vehicle driven
by deceased and it pushed the vehicle
behind. We are fortified in our view by the
decision of this Court in Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Co.Ltd. ( supra).

14. The Apex Court in the decision of
Renu Rani Shrivastava Vs. New India
Assurance
Company
Limited,
AIR
(2019) 5719 while considering several
decision on the issue of negligence has
reconsidered the issue of negligence. In the
said case the deceased was coming from K
side to A side by car and lorry was coming
from A to K and there was a collision
between two vehicles - car was coming on
its correct side. Lorry recklessly and
negligently was driven by driver came on
the right side of the road and dragged the
car to extreme side of road. The Apex
Court considered the breadth of road and
decided the question of negligence.
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. In case on hand from the evidence
it is clear that the car was on its correct side
but was slightly on the right hand side of
the road. This fact would reveal that the
driver of the lorry was more negligent and
collided with the car of the deceased at
point "A" . Thus, we hold the driver of both
the vehicles to have contributed to the
accident not in equal proportionate. The
driver of the car was driving the smaller
vehicle . The driver of lorry was suppose to
take more caution and, therefore, we
modified the order of Tribunal.

Finding For Compensation :-

16. We consider the income of the
deceased to be Rs.4,00,000/- per annum as
per the income tax returns. It has been
submitted by counsel that tax has already
been deduced while calculating the income.
As far as the heads of addition of future
loss is concerned, the finding of Tribunal
does not require any modification as
addition of 25% is granted which is just
and proper.

17. Heard the learned counsels for the
parties and considered the factual data. This
Court finds that the accident occurred on
7.5.2016 causing death of Gyan Prasad
Uttam who was 48 years of age at the time
of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his
income to be Rs.3,58,676/- per year which
according to this Court, in the year of
accident, would be at least Rs.4,00,000/-
per year looking to his vocation and the
income tax return as per decision of Apex
Court in Sangita Arya and Others (
supra) and hold that taking mean of
income of three years is bad as reflected in
tax returns. The income as per income tax
return by increasing and hence income of
last year return latter most income tax
return every year has to be considered
taking of average has been deprecated by
Apex Court in case titled Sangita Arya
and Others ( supra) which we follow. To
which as the deceased was in the age
bracket of 46-50, 25% of the income will
have to be added in view of the decision of
the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra).
The amount under non-pecuniary heads
should be at least Rs.1,00,000/- in view of
the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) as
every three years 10% be added to
Rs.70,000/-.
In
view
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, this Court feels
no interference is called for as far as
deduction
of
personal
expenses
is
concerned.

18. The total compensation payable is
recalculated and is computed herein below:

i. Annual Income Rs.4,00,000/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 25% namely Rs.1,00,000/-

iii. Total income : Rs.4,00,000/- +
Rs.1,00,000/- = Rs.5,00,000/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/3rd
towards
personal
expenses
:
Rs.3,33,333/-

v. Multiplier applicable : 13

vi.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.3,33,333/- x 13 = Rs.43,33,329/-

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

viii.
Total
compensation
:Rs.44,33,329/-.

ix. Compensation payable to
claimants
after
deductions
of
30%
negligence on the part of the deceased :
6 All. Smt. Sheela Devi & Ors. Vs. Shri Sumit Kumar & Ors.
877
Rs.44,33,329/-
-
Rs.13,29,999/-
=
Rs.31,03,330/-

19. 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."

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

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case
of Smt. Hansagauri 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.

24.

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

25. T he 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
19 years have elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.
----------
(2022)06ILR A878
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1663 of 2016

Smt. Pooja Tiwari & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Vidya Kant Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Smt. Raj Kumari Devi

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section -166- Appeal - compensation -
Contributory
negligence
-
offending
Truck came and dashed with scooter of
deceased causing grievous injuries and
death - truck being bigger vehicle, the
driver of truck has to be more cautious -
Principle
of
Res
ipsa
loquitur
-
contributory negligence to the extent of
25% attributed to the deceased.(Para
15)
(B) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section 166, - U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998,
Rules
220
-
Compensation
-
Quantum - Multiplier of 16 should be
applied instead of 17 as deceased was in
age bracket of 31 - 35 as well as per law
lay down in Sarla Verma'a & Pranay Sethi'
case 50% of income ought to be added
towards
future
loss
of
income
-
Compensation computed and awarded
accordingly. (Para 16, 17, 20)

Appeal is partly allowed.(E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Dinesh J Vs National Insurance Comp. Ltd. &
ors., 2018 vol. 1 TAC 337 (SC)

2. National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors., 2017 vol. 0 Supreme (SC) 105

3. Pawan Kumar & anr. Vs M/S Harkishan Dass
Mohan Lal & ors. (Decided on 29.01.2014)

4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Smt. Renu Singh & ors. (FAFO No. 1818/2012
Decided on Dt. 19.07.2016)

5. Archit Saini & anr. Vs Oriental Insurance
Comp. Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 1143

6. Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Comp. Ltd.
& ors., 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469

7. Vimal Kanwar & ors. v. Kishore Dan & ors.,
2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (SC)

8. Sarla Verma & ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr., 2009 LawSuit (SC)

9. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (Supreme court)

10. A. V. Padma Vs Venugopal (2012 vol. 1 GLH
SC 442)

11. Smt. Hansa Gauri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. (2007 vol. 2 GLH 291)

12. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), (R/Special