# Smt. Sudesna & Ors v. Hari Singh & Anr - **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 79 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-11-26 - **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 23 of 2001 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sudesna-ors-v-hari-singh-anr-45523 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote 80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES A. Motor Accident Claim-Amount of award - Failure to deposit - More than one and a half year has elapsed -Held, If the amount is not deposited, the same is liable to be deposited on or before 31.1.2021. (Para 3 and 6) Review Application disposed of (E-1) Cases relied on :- ## Text 12 All. Smt. Sudesna & Ors. Vs. Hari Singh & Anr. 79 (ii) On his death, no first information report had been lodged with regard to the incident of encounter and as such there was no occasion of forwarding the report to the Court under Section 157 Cr.P.C. The intimation sent to the senior officials about encounter entered in the G.D. and special report of the incident allegedly sent by the accused Dhirendra Singh Yadav (SHO, Police Station Baradhpur, District Bijnor) were merely an eye-wash. (iii) No independent investigation into the incident was directed to be conducted by the competent officer till the direction was issued by the Apex Court vide judgement and order dated 08.10.1993 after almost for a period of 1 year from the date of the incident that too on the issue raised by a relative of deceased. (iv) No magisterial enquiry under Section 176 Cr.P.C. was held and as such there was no occasion of sending a judicial report to the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to make further inquiry. No information was given to the National Human Right Commission or State Human Right Commission. (v) Most importantly even identity of deceased was not determined before cremation of his dead body. (vi) Relatives of the alleged criminal/victim/deceased had not been informed by the police. 67. Having noted the above and in light of threadbare discussion on all issues arising in the instant case, no infirmity could be found in the decision of the trial court for conviction of accused-appellants for the offences under Section 364 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 218 IPC, Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. The charges framed against them have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. As the sentence awarded to the appellants is minimum, the same requires no interference. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant namely Jaipal Singh in the connected Appeal No.1345 of 2012 is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The Court concerned is directed to take him in custody and send him to jail forthwith for serving out the remaining part of his sentence. The other surviving accused appellants in all the connected appeals are in jail. They shall serve the remaining sentence. Certify this judgment to the court below immediately for compliance. The compliance report be submitted through the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad. ---------- (2020)12ILR A79 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. First Appeal From Order No. 23 of 2001 Smt. Sudesna & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Hari Singh & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Nigamendra Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Amresh Sinha 80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES A. Motor Accident Claim-Amount of award - Failure to deposit - More than one and a half year has elapsed -Held, If the amount is not deposited, the same is liable to be deposited on or before 31.1.2021. (Para 3 and 6) Review Application disposed of (E-1) Cases relied on :- 1. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Hussain Babulal Shaikh & ors., 2017 (1) TAC 400 (Bom.) (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) (In Re: Civil Misc. Review Application No.1 of 2020) 1. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla for the appellant on the review petition. 2. It is stated by the learned Counsel that the review is meant for a very limited purpose. It does not challenge the award or the judgment but the challenge is to the approach of the Insurance company. 3. In the judgment as the Insurance company has not been directed to deposit the amount within a particular time though one and a half year has elapsed, the amount has not been deposited. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hussain Babulal Shaikh and others, 2017 (1) TAC 400 (Bom.). 5. It is further orally conveyed that even if the amounts will be deposited, the Insurance company normally deducts TDS. The judgement is reviewed and at the end. "I. On depositing the amount in the Registry of the Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any. II. 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 not illiterate and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hussain Babulal Shaikh and others, 2017 (1) TAC 400 (Bom.). III. 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, registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant to withdraw the amount (as directed in para No. II) without producing the certificate from the concerned IncomeTax Authority." 6. If the amount is not deposited, the same shall be deposited on or before 31.1.2021 as more than one and a half year has elapsed. 7. It goes without saying that if the amount is deposited and TDS is deducted, the Insurance company shall see to it that in future this mistake is not committed and will help the appellant in recovering the said amount from the income-tax department. 12 All. Smt. Rekha Mishra & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar & Ors. 81 8. The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Tribunals so that the Tribunals may pass necessary orders while disposed of the claim petitions. 9. The review application is disposed of. ---------- (2020)12ILR A81 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. First Appeal From Order No. 598 of 2020 Smt. Rekha Mishra & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Ram Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Hanuman Prasad Dube, Sri Vipul Dube Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Radheyshyam, Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha A. Motor Accident Claim - Deduction of income tax on the compensation - Power of Tribunal - Held, Tribunal cannot deduct tax on the compensation - The amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be subjected to tax on the flat rate as decided by the Tribunal. (Para 11 and 13) B. Interpretation of Statute - Motor Vehicle legislation and Tax legislation - Conflict - Which amongst it prevail - Motor Vehicle legislation is a social welfare legislation and there is no conflict between the social welfare legislation and tax legislation - Even if there is conflict, the social welfare legislation would prevail as it would subserve larger public interest. (Para 13) Appeal partly allowed (E-1) Cases relied on :- 1. Hansaguri Parafulchandra Ladhani & ors. Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2007 ACJ 1897 2. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Hussain Babulal Shaikh & ors., 2017 (1) TAC 400 (Bom.) 3. F.A.F.O. No. 2935 of 2005, Smt. Balesh Kumari & ors. Vs Sahbat Khan & anr., decided on 25.11.2020 4. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation & ors., (2009) 5 SCC 121 5. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal & ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) 1. Heard Sri Dube, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P.K. Sinha, Advocate, assisted by Sri Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. 2. This appeal is preferred by the original claimants against the award and decree dated 23.11.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Jhansi in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 29 of 2018. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 6.11.2017 Jai Prakash Mishra on motorcycle bearing Registration No. U.P. 93 AE 9142 was going to Mijhauna via Daboha. Said motorcyle was being driven by his elder brother Virendra Kumar Mishra carefully and slowly at left side. When the motorcycle reached in front of village Gora at Daboha Bhander Road at about 1.35 pm, a Scorpio bearing Registration No. MP 09 V 6431 was coming rashly and negligently from front looking to which Virendra Kumar Mishra stopped motorcycle on kachcha pavement of his left hand despite that said Scorpio dashed hardly motorcycle on account of which Virendra Kumar Mishra and Jai Prakash Mishra succumbed to injuries on the spot.