# Smt. Shyam Sundari Devi v. Ajay Kumar Gupta & Ors - **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 177 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-03-20 - **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 616 of 1996 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shyam-sundari-devi-v-ajay-kumar-gupta-ors-50261 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim - Appellant are claimant-accident and negligence is not in dispute-quantum of compensation is disputed-deceased was 28 years of age-working as homeguard-survived by his widow and two sons-income should be at least Rs. 1500/-per month-1/3rd to be deducted-50% of the income added for future loss-multiplier of 17 and pecuniary damages calculated. Appeal partly allowed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: ## Text 5 All. Smt. Shyam Sundari Devi Vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta Ors. 177 claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R. 15. Record be sent back to tribunal forthwith. 16. This Court is thankful to both the learned Advocates for ably assisting this Court. ---------- (2023) 5 ILRA 177 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. First Appeal From Order No. 616 of 1996 Smt. Shyam Sundari Devi ...Appellant Versus Ajay Kumar Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri R.C. Srivastava, Sri S.K. Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: Sri H.N. Singh, Sri B.N. Singh Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim - Appellant are claimant-accident and negligence is not in dispute-quantum of compensation is disputed-deceased was 28 years of age-working as homeguard-survived by his widow and two sons-income should be at least Rs. 1500/-per month-1/3rd to be deducted-50% of the income added for future loss-multiplier of 17 and pecuniary damages calculated. Appeal partly allowed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: 1. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442 2. Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 3. Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.) (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent. Officers of National Insurance Company are present. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgement and decree dated 24.04.1996 passed by M.A.C.T/I-Additional District Judge, Mau (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 54 of 1992. The accident is not in dispute. His death by the accident is not in dispute. The issue of 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 deceased Virendra Kumar Srivastava was working as a homeguard at police station Netpura, District Varanasi. On 07.06.1992 at about 4:00 a.m when deceased Virendra Kumar Srivastava was returning back with Sup-Inspector Kedarnath Pandey in a jeep bearing registration no. M.P.-7B/0927 after completing their work from Mau, at cemented road near dandi village near Rajdev Ram baag a truck bearing registration no. URQ-6354 going towards Gorakhpur from Mau driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed into Jeep as a result of which deceased died on the spot along-with three other persons travelling with him. 178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 4. The deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident and he was working as a homeguard in Police Station Naitpura, District Varanasi. He was survived by his widow and two sons. Time has elapsed and his widow has become 63 years of age today and his sons who were minor at the time of accident have also become major, may that as it may be. He was earning Rs. 600/- p.m as a homeguard and Rs. 1400/- p.m from his medicine selling business which amounts to Rs. 2000/- p.m. The tribunal has granted a lumsum amount of Rs. 64, 800/-. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has considered income of the deceased but has granted a lumsum amount of Rs. 64, 800/- as far as issues are concerned. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that deceased was a homeguard and therefore, his income atleast should be considered to be Rs.1500/- per month, 1/3rd to be deducted. To which as the deceased was 28 years at the time of accident, 50% of the income would have to be added as future loss of income to the deceased, multiplier would be of 17 and Rs. 50,000/- can be considered towards non pecuniary damages. 7. 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/- p.m ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 50% namely Rs.750/- iii. Total income : Rs. 1500 + 750 = Rs. 2250/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd : Rs. 1500/- v. Annual loss : Rs. 1500 x 12 = Rs. 18,000/- vi. Multiplier applicable : 17 vii. Total loss : Rs. 18,000 x 17 = Rs. 3,06,000/- xii. Amount under non-pecuniary head : Rs.50,000/- xiii. Total compensation : 3,56,000/- 8. As the parties have decided to settle the issue the rate of interest would be 6%. on enhanced amount from date of filing the claim petition till deposit of enhanced amount. 9. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 10. 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 additional amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest as directed above. 11. 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. 12. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani v/s The 5 All. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh & Anr. 179 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. 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 judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case. 14. The Tribunal will now not keep any amount in fixed deposit as more than 30 years have elapsed from the date of filing of the claim petition. 15. Record be sent back to the tribunal. 16. This Court is thankful to the learned counsels for ably assisting this Court. ---------- (2023) 5 ILRA 179 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. First Appeal From Order No. 651 of 1996 M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Suresh & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Anubhav Sinha, Sri Vipul Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.K. Singh Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim - Respondent injured-denied by insurance company-issue of negligence decided -driver negligent-composite negligence qua the claimant who was cleaner on the vehicle -driver was negligent-injured was 26 years of agesuffered 40% disability-amount calculated is just compensation. Appeal dismissed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: 1. First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 ( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt. Renu Singh & ors.) decided on 19.7.2016 2. Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Company Limited & ors., 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)