# Smt. Sonia & Ors v. Jaleel & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 222
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-15
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 265 of 2022
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sonia-ors-v-jaleel-ors-48290
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Torts Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 173 - compensation enhancement
- the Income Tax Act, 1961- Section 194A
(3) (ix) - total amount of interest, accrued
on the principal amount of compensation
is to be apportioned on financial year to
financial year basis - 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' - if the amount
of interest does not exceeds Rs.50,000/-
in any financial year - registry of Tribunal
is directed to allow the claimants to
withdraw the amount without producing
the
certificate
from
the
concerned
Income-Tax Authority - compensation for
future loss of income . (Para - 11)

Two appeals - claimants - enhancement of
amount
of
compensation
-
United
India
Insurance Co. Ltd. - setting aside - claim
petition allowed by tribunal - compensation
awarded , Rs.4,79,000/- - rate of interest - 6%
per annum -(Para - 1,2,)
4 All. Smt. Sonia & Ors. Vs. Jaleel & Ors.
223
HELD:-Tribunal has not committed any error in
law or in facts in holding that appellantInsurance Company is liable to pay the amount
of compensation to the claimants.
Total
compensation
payable
to
the
claimants
Rs.11,71,000/-. Multiplier of 17 applied.40%
added to future prospects. (Para -5)

Appeal of claimants partly allowed.

Appeal of Insurance Company dismissed.
(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

53. So far as the defendant-vendor is
concerned, there is hardly any right based
on law or in equity that arises in his favour.
He has sold off the suit property to the
defendant-purchasers for a valuable sale
consideration of Rs.68,000/-, as would be
evident from a perusal of the registered sale
deed dated 16.09.1998. He has nothing to
lose by the approval of a decree of specific
performance passed by the Courts below.
Of course, anything said here would not
affect the rights and liabilities inter se the
defendant-vendor
and
the
defendantpurchasers on the basis of conveyance
dated 16.09.1998, that would stand effaced
in consequence of the decree of specific
performance passed in favour of the
plaintiff-vendees.

54. Substantial Question of Law (4) is
answered in the aforesaid terms.

55. In the result, this appeal fails and
stands dismissed with costs throughout, to
be borne equally between the defendantvendor and the defendant-purchasers.

56.

The
interim
order
dated
22.05.2003 in the terms made absolute on
23.07.2004, is hereby vacated. The sum of
money
deposited
by
the
defendantpurchasers shall be paid to the plaintiffvendees together with any accrued interest,
if earned, within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order by the Trial Court.

57. Let a decree be drawn up
accordingly.

58. The records of the Courts below
shall be sent down at once along with a
certified copy of this judgment.
----------
(2022)04ILR A222
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 265 of 2022
&
First Appeal From Order No. 100 of 2014

Smt. Sonia & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Jaleel & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.D. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ram Prakash Vishwakarma, Sri Virendra
Prakash

(A) Torts Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 173 - compensation enhancement
- the Income Tax Act, 1961- Section 194A
(3) (ix) - total amount of interest, accrued
on the principal amount of compensation
is to be apportioned on financial year to
financial year basis - 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' - if the amount
of interest does not exceeds Rs.50,000/-
in any financial year - registry of Tribunal
is directed to allow the claimants to
withdraw the amount without producing
the
certificate
from
the
concerned
Income-Tax Authority - compensation for
future loss of income . (Para - 11)

Two appeals - claimants - enhancement of
amount
of
compensation
-
United
India
Insurance Co. Ltd. - setting aside - claim
petition allowed by tribunal - compensation
awarded , Rs.4,79,000/- - rate of interest - 6%
per annum -(Para - 1,2,)
4 All. Smt. Sonia & Ors. Vs. Jaleel & Ors.
223
HELD:-Tribunal has not committed any error in
law or in facts in holding that appellantInsurance Company is liable to pay the amount
of compensation to the claimants.
Total
compensation
payable
to
the
claimants
Rs.11,71,000/-. Multiplier of 17 applied.40%
added to future prospects. (Para -5)

Appeal of claimants partly allowed.

Appeal of Insurance Company dismissed.
(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.
Suman & ors. , FAFO No.611 of 2013

2. National Insurance Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.,
2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093

3. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corp.
& anr., 2009 ACJ 1298

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

5. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr. ,
Review Application No.1 of 2020 in F.A.F.O.
No.23 of 2001

6. Tej Kumari Sharma Vs Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Insurance Co. Ltd., F.A.F.O. No.2871 of
2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. These two appeals are preferred
against the same judgement one FAFO
No.265 of 2022 on behalf of the claimants
for
enhancement
of
amount
of
compensation and another FAFO No.100 of
2014 by United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
for setting aside the impugned judgement.

2. The impugned judgement was
passed
by
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.3, Saharanpur on 7.10.2013 in MACP
No.146 of 2012, Smt. Sonia and others Vs.
Jaleel and others by which the claim
petition of the claimants was allowed and
Rs.4,79,000/- compensation was awarded
with 6% per annum rate of interest.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
aforesaid claim petition was filed due to the
death of deceased Subhash Chand @
Subhash Kumar in a road accident. It is
submitted in petition that on 24.06.2012,
the deceased was going from his village
with
his
Bhabhi-Smt.
Rachana
by
Motorcycle No.UP-11 AD 9794. At 07:30
PM when he reached near village Chhibna,
a tractor trolley No. UP 11 AC 8341 came
from the opposite side which was driven by
negligently and rashly by its driver.
Deceased stopped his motorcycle at the left
side of the road but the tractor driver hit the
motorcycle. In this accident, deceased
sustained fatal injuries and died on way to
the hospital. Owner of the tractor and
Insurance Company filed their respective
statements. Learned Tribunal allowed the
petition and awarded Rs.4,79,000/- with
6% rate of interest as compensation.

4. First of all, we take up the
contention of the appeal preferred by the
Insurance Company. Insurance Company
has preferred the appeal merely on the two
grounds. One is that at the time of accident,
a trolley was attached to the tractor but the
trolley was not insured and second ground
that at the time of accident, the tractor was
being driven by Muntazir but in order to
avoid his liability the owner of the tractor
produced Mohd. Farmaan as driver of the
vehicle. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company submitted that in fact the driver
of the tractor have not having a valid
license. First information report was lodged
against Muntazir showing him the driver of
the tractor but the charge sheet was
submitted against Mohd. Farmaan due to
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
collusion of the owner of the tractor and the
investigating officer. Learned counsel next
submitted that it is the admitted case of the
claimants that the trolley was attached to
the tractor and the trolley was not insured
hence at the time of accident, the tractor
was being used for commercial purpose
and it was being applied in breach of the
condition
of
insurance
policy.
This
contention of Insurance Company is
vehemently opposed by the learned counsel
for the claimants, who submitted that this
provision of law has been settled by this
Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Smt. Suman and Others in FAFO
No.611 of 2013 dated 06.03.2013. Shri
S.D.
Ojha,
learned
counsel
for
the
claimants submitted that this case is
covered by the aforesaid case. It is further
submitted by Shri Ojha that it is on record
that at the time of accident, trolley was
vacant and trolley was not being used for
any commercial purpose.

5. So far as the question of driver of
the tractor is concerned, we are not
convinced with the submission made by the
Insurance Company. Charge sheet was
submitted by investigating officer against
Mohd. Farmaan and not against Muntazir.
Charge sheet was submitted after making
thorough investigation, hence, now it
would not be open for the Insurance
Company to contend that it is not liable as
the charge sheet is submitted against Mohd.
Farmaan
and
not
against
Muntazir.
Submission of Insurance Company is that
the trolley should have been insured but
once the tractor is insured, the Insurance
Company cannot wriggle out from its
liability as held by this Court in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Suman
and Others in FAFO No.611 of 2013. The
submission of Insurance Company that
tractor was being used for commercial
purpose cannot be accepted in absence of
any such evidence because nothing was
loaded in the trolley at the time of accident
and it was vacant. Hence, in our considered
opinion, the learned Tribunal has not
committed any error in law or in facts in
holding that appellant-Insurance Company
is liable to pay the amount of compensation
to the claimants.

6. Now we come to the point of
amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants
submitted that Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per
month, which is very low because deceased
was having agriculture income. Hence at least
Rs.6,000/- per month income should have
been assessed. It is not disputed by Insurance
Company that deceased was not agriculturist.
Hence, we assess the income of the deceased
at Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal
has not awarded any sum towards future loss
of income. In National Insurance Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 LawSuit
(SC) 1093, compensation will be awarded for
future loss of income also. The age of
deceased was 27 years at the time of accident,
hence according to the aforesaid judgement
40% will be added for future prospects. The
deceased was survived by his wife and three
children and father. Therefore, keeping in
view the number of dependents 1⁄4 of income
should
be
deducted
towards
personal
expenses of the deceased. Since the age of the
deceased was 27 years, therefore, as per the
judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla
Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298,
a multiplier of 17 will be applied. Learned
Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of
consortium, Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and
Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses under the
4 All. Prabhat Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dheeraj Khurana & Anr.
225
head of non-pecuniary damages, which are
on lower side. As per judgement of the Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) claimants shall
be entitled to Rs.15,000/- for funeral
expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate.
Apart from it, the wife of the deceased shall
be entitled to get Rs.40,000/- for loss of
consortium. Non-pecuniary damages are with
10% increase every three years. Hence, we
grant Rs.1,00,000/- in the head of nonpecuniary damages.

8. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the claimants is computed herein
below:-

i. Annual Income : Rs.5,000/- x
12 = Rs.60,000/-

ii.
Amount
towards
future
prospects : 40% = Rs.24,000/-

iii. Total Income : Rs.60000+
Rs.24,000/- = Rs.84,000/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1⁄4 =
84,000-21,000 = Rs.63,000/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 17

vii. Total loss of dependency
Rs.63,000/- x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/-

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

ix. Total compensation : Rs.
10,71,000 + Rs.1,00,000 = Rs.11,71,000/-

9. As Insurance Company has conciliated
the matter, 6% per annum rate of interest should
be paid. The insurance company shall deposit
the amount within a period of 12 weeks from
today with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till
amount is deposited. The amount already
deposited be deducted from the amount to be
deposited.

10. Accordingly, the appeal of claimants is
partly allowed and appeal of the Insurance
Company is dismissed.

11. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt.
Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2)
GLH 291 and this High Court in 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
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.

12. The record and proceedings be
sent back to the Tribunal for disbursement.
----------
(2022)04ILR A225
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1165 of 2009

Prabhat Kumar & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Dheeraj Khurana & Anr. ...Respondents