# Smt. Suchi Sharma & Anr v. U.P. State Road Transport Corp., Meerut & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 310
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-12
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 3364 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-suchi-sharma-anr-v-u-p-state-road-transport-corp-meerut-ors-46284
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Rahul Sahai, Sri Jagram Singh

(A) Quantum of Compensation - The total
compensation payable was calculated in view of
the decision of the Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi.
(Para 9)

Appeal Partly Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 Vs. Venugopal reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment
is not passed because applicants/claimants
are neither illiterate nor rustic villagers.

38. Record be sent back to the Tribunal.
----------

(2021)10ILR A310
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 12.08.2021

BEFORE

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

FAFO No. 3364 of 2014

Smt. Suchi Sharma & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
U.P. State Road Transport Corp., Meerut &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Vidya Shukla, Sri R.S. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rahul Sahai, Sri Jagram Singh

(A) Quantum of Compensation - The total
compensation payable was calculated in view of
the decision of the Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi.
(Para 9)

Appeal Partly Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

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

2. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corp. (2009)
6 SCC 121
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors. 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)

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

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

6. Smt. Sudesna & Ors. Vs Hari Singh & ors.
Review Application No. 1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No. 23 of 2001 (followed)

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the judgment and
order impugned and documents annexed
and record of Tribunal.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 3.9.2014 passed by Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District
Judge,
Court
No.
11,
Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 511 of 2011
awarding a sum of Rs.3,93,500/- with
interest at the rate of 7% from the date of
filing the claim petition till date of award as
compensation.

3. Facts in brevity are that on
27.4.2011 at about 3.30 pm deceased Durga
Shankar Dwivedi was going to Meerut
from Delhi boarding in a Bus having
registration no. UP 11 T 2698. When the
bus reached in front of Modi Nagar Tehsil,
driver of truck having registration no. UP
12 T 4503, coming from Meerut side, being
driven rashly and negligently dashed the
bus on account of which the persons in bus
were injured badly. Deceased also got
10 All. Smt. Suchi Sharma & Anr. Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corp., Meerut & Ors.
311
injured badly. He was got admitted in
Jaswant Rai Hospital, Meerut where he
died on 28.4.2011 at about 12.15 pm during
treatment.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal
is not in dispute. The respondents have not
challenged the liability imposed on them.
Only issue to be decided is the quantum of
compensation awarded.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for
the appellant that the deceased was 45 years
of age at the time of accident. He was
working in Emerald Jwellers Industry India
Ltd. as Sales Associate from where he used to
earn Rs.20,000/- per mensem, but, the
Tribunal assessed his income to be Rs.3,000/-
arbitrarily. It is further submitted that no
amount was granted towards future loss of
income of the deceased which should be
granted in view of the decision in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC)
1050. It is further submitted that the amount
granted under non-pecuniary damages are on
the lower side and it should be as per the
decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Hence,
award of the Tribunal may be enhanced.

6. As against this, Sri Rahul Sahai,
Advocate ably assisted by Sri Parihar,
submitted that the income considered by the
court below to be Rs.3,000/- is just and
proper. It is submitted that future prospect
could not have been granted as Judgment of
Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121
was a binding precedent when the award was
pronounced
as
deceased
was
not
in
permanent employment silent on it. Loss of
dependency is just and proper. It is further
submitted that non pecuniary damages
granted are as per Rule 220 A of the
U.P.S.R.T.C. Rate of interest should be 6
percent or as granted by Tribunal.

7. Sri Jag Ram Singh, learned counsel
for the U.P.S.R.T.C. submitted that bus of the
U.P.S.R.T.C. has been exonerated as driver
of the vehicle was held to be not negligent.

8. It is submitted by counsel for appellants
that the finding of fact that the evidence of P.W.
is not trustworthy and is fallacious and strict
proof of civil pleadings could not be applied so
as to hold otherwise tthough salary slip is
produced which is corroborated by the bank
account of the deceased just to hold that
whether the officer had authoritty to sign or not
is bad in view of the precedents, i.e., amount of
salary or not has gone too for in negating the
evidence on record by misreading the same, this
finding is bad.

9. We have considered the factual data
and submissions. We have perused Ext.
50/G, 10G, 54 G, 10 C 54C/4 and the
evidence of P.W. 2. We are satisfied that
deceased was officer and was in employment.
His income can be considered at least to be
Rs.10,000/- in the year of accident to which
as he was 35 years of age, 40% will have to
be added under the head of future prospect as
he was in private job. Rs.70,000/- is awarded
under the head of non pecuniary damages
with increase of 10 per cent for three years
from the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra).

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

i. Income Rs.10,000/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.4,000/-

iii. Total income : Rs.10,000
+4,000 = Rs.14,000/-
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3:
Rs.9,334/-

v. Annual income : Rs.9,334 x 12
= Rs.1,12,008/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 16

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.1,12,008 x 16 = Rs.1792128/-

viii. Amount under non-pecuniary
head : Rs.70,000/-+Rs.30,000/-=1,00,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:Rs.18,92,128/-

11. 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."

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

13. 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 be passed looking to the status
of applicants.

14. 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/-
then
only
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) while disbursing
the amount.

15. 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
the amount is deposited. The amount
10 All. Vijay Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.
313
already deposited be deducted from the
amount to be deposited.

16.

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.

17. Record be sent back to the
Tribunal forthwith.
----------
(2021)10ILR A313
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 1.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2342 of 2009

Vijay Kumar Srivastava ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
K.K. Singh, Ambrish Singh Yadav, Amit
Jaiswal- Ojus Law, Nisar Ahmad, Parnendu
Chakravarty

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Govt. Advocate, Pradeep Kr. Tripathi

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal
Code,
1860-Section
420,
467,
468,471-
Prevention
of
Corruption
Act,1988-Section 13(2)-challenge to-order
of cognizance without sanction-petitioner
was serving as public servant u/s 2(c) of
the Act,1988-section 19 mandates for
obtaining
previous
sanction
before
passing of the cognizance order-learned
special judge committed a fundamental
error which invalidates the cognizance as
without jurisdiction.(Para 1 to 10)

The petition is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Goa Vs Babu Thomas (2005) SCC (Cri)
1995

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State.
None appears for respondent no.2. I have
perused the record.

2. It has been informed at bar that
Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned
counsel for respondent no.2 has not
appeared in this case for the last several
dates.

3. The petitioner has confined his
prayer for quashing of the order dated
27.3.2008 by which the cognizance against
the petitioner has been taken by the learned
court below in Case Crime No.2 of 2008 so
also order dated 11.1.2009 by which nonbailable warrant have been issued against
the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that at the time of taking
cognizance the petitioner was functioning
as Secretary/General Manager of the
Northern Railway, Primary Cooperative
Bank, Lucknow since 2003. It is submitted
that
after
registration
of
the
First
Information Report the investigation was
conducted and police report was filed under
Section 420, 467,468,471 Indian Penal