# Smt. Sunita Bansal Gupta & Anr v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 891
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-12
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2030 of 2011
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sunita-bansal-gupta-anr-v-smt-ranjana-gupta-anr-48670
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166 & 173 - Motor Accident claim -
Quantum of compensation - deceased going
on a Scooter as a pillion rider collided with
the truck, sustained several injuries and
died - deceased aged about 20 years was
Student of Engineering & was also doing
part time job and was earning Rs.10,000/-
per month - Tribunal refused to consider the
Income Tax Returns of the deceased as it
held that the income of the deceased was
not proved, therefore daily wage of labourer
should be considered as an income - reason
for not accepting IT returns, is that a young
student cannot travel to serve - Tribunal not
granted any amount towards future loss of
income & applied multiplier of 14 as per age
of mother - Held - income looking to the
private employment and the student of
engineering,
his
income
must
be
Rs.10,000/- p.m. - deceased was below the
age of 40 years and self employed, hence
40% of the income will have to be added - it
is now settled legal position that age of the
deceased has to be considered, therefore
Multiplier applicable is 18, as the deceased
was in the age bracket of 15- 20 years
applicable (Para 14, 15)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. Smt. Sunita Bansal Gupta & Anr. Vs. Smt. Ranjana Gupta & Anr.
891

iii. Total income : Rs. 20,000 +
8,000 = Rs. 28,000/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/4th : Rs. 21,000/-

v. Annual income : Rs.21,000 x
12 = Rs. 2,52,000/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 16

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.2,52,000 x 16 = Rs.40,32,000/-

viii.
Amount
under
filial
consortium and other non pecuniary heads :
Rs.70,000/- + Rs.50,000/- to the each 3
minor children

x.
Total
compensation
:
42,52,000/-

12. 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."

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

14. 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 respondent-Insurance
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 already deposited be deducted
from the amount to be deposited.

15. The 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 10 years have
elapsed, the amount be deposited in the
Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized
Bank without F.D.R.

16. Record be sent back to the tribunal.

17. This Court is thankful to both the
counsels for getting this matter decided.
----------
(2022)06ILR A891
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 2030 of 2011

Smt. Sunita Bansal Gupta & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Ranjana Gupta & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Sanjay Agarwal, Sri Abhijit Banerjee, Sri
Sundeep Agarwal
892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166 & 173 - Motor Accident claim -
Quantum of compensation - deceased going
on a Scooter as a pillion rider collided with
the truck, sustained several injuries and
died - deceased aged about 20 years was
Student of Engineering & was also doing
part time job and was earning Rs.10,000/-
per month - Tribunal refused to consider the
Income Tax Returns of the deceased as it
held that the income of the deceased was
not proved, therefore daily wage of labourer
should be considered as an income - reason
for not accepting IT returns, is that a young
student cannot travel to serve - Tribunal not
granted any amount towards future loss of
income & applied multiplier of 14 as per age
of mother - Held - income looking to the
private employment and the student of
engineering,
his
income
must
be
Rs.10,000/- p.m. - deceased was below the
age of 40 years and self employed, hence
40% of the income will have to be added - it
is now settled legal position that age of the
deceased has to be considered, therefore
Multiplier applicable is 18, as the deceased
was in the age bracket of 15- 20 years
applicable (Para 14, 15)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

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

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shyam Singh
& ors., 2011 ACJ 1990 SC

3. Smt. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corp. &
ors., 2009 (3) RAJ 373

4. Meena Pawaia & ors. Vs Ashraf Ali & ors,
2021 LawSuit (SC) 743

5.
General
Manager,
Kerala
State
Road
Transport Corp., Trivandrum Vs. Susamma
Thomas 1993 (0) AIJEL- SC 9412

6. Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & anr. Vs R.M.K
Veluswami & ors. 1962 SCR(1) 929,

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

8. Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali Vs Shyam Kishore
Murmu, 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67995

9. A.Vs Padma & ors. Vs R. Venugopal, 2012 (3)
SCC 378

10. General Manager, Kerala State Road
Transport Corp., Trivandrum Vs Susamma
Thomas & ors., AIR 1994 SC 1631

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

12. National 7 Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat
Johal & ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)

13. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), R/Special
Civil Application No.4800 of 2021 decided on
05.04.2022

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

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the
respondents. Perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 30.11.2010 passed by Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal Agra/Additional
District
Judge,
Court
No.4,
Agra
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.458 of
2009 awarding a sum of Rs.2,59,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.
6 All. Smt. Sunita Bansal Gupta & Anr. Vs. Smt. Ranjana Gupta & Anr.
893

3. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal
is not in dispute. The respondent concerned
has not challenged the liability imposed on
them and, therefore, issues decided by the
tribunal other then grant of compensation
have attained finality. The only issue to be
decided is, the quantum of compensation
awarded.

4. The brief facts as culled out from the
record are that on 25.05.2009 at about 12.00
p.m., deceased Rahul Bansal aged about 20
years along with one Prashant Goyal was
going by the Honda Activa Scooter as a
pillion rider to his college in a moderate
speed on his left side, a truck no.RJ-29/GA0223 which was being driven ahead of
deceased, in a very high speed suddenly
applied brake and due to which scooter
collided with the truck, the deceased plying
along with Prashant Goyal sustained several
injuries and died on the same day.

5. It is submitted by Shri Sundeep
Agarwal, learned counsel for appellants
that the Tribunal refused to consider the
Income Tax Returns of the deceased and it
is further submitted by Shri Agarwal that
young boy who was Student of Engineering
may have taken loan that cannot be
adversely held against the earning capacity
of the deceased. It is not proved by any
cogent evidence by the respondents that the
evidence of PW-3 is unreliable. It is further
submitted that Tribunal has not granted any
amount towards future loss of income of
the deceased which is required to 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 amount
under non-pecuniary heads which is
granted and the interest awarded by the
Tribunal are on the lower side and requires
enhancement.
Learned
counsel
for
appellants submitted that deceased was
Student of Engineering and he was also
doing part time job and was earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. It is also submitted
that as the deceased was looking after his
father and mother, the deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased who was
bachelor and 20 years of age should be 1/2.
The multiplier has to be as per age of
deceased, i.e., 20 years and it should have
been 18 instead of 14 as awarded by the
tribunal. No cogent reasons except that
reasonable compensation would be if
multiplier of 14 is granted as per age of
mother. The tribunal has considered the
judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) wherein
also it is held that age of deceased be
considered. The judgement of Sarla Verma
(Supra) has been totally misinterpreted by
the learned Judge. The tribunal could have
very well even relied on the judgment titled
National Insurance Company Ltd v.
Shyam Singh and others, 2011 ACJ 1990
SC referred by reiterating Sarla Verma
(Supra) which also should have been
looked into by the tribunal while deciding
the multiplier. The tribunal should not have
taken the multiplier of the mother.
However, it is now settled legal position
that age of the deceased has to be
considered. The tribunal has not assessed
the future loss of income and it should be
40% of income as per U.P. Motor Vehicles
Rules, 2011 and Pranay Sethi (Supra).

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-Insurance
company,
has
vehemently
submitted
that
the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper and does not call for any
enhancement. It is also contended that there
is no documentary evidence to show that
the income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/-
p.m. in the year 2011, i.e., year of accident.
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. The moot question which arises
before us, whether this Court should concur
with funniest reasons given by the learned
tribunal sought to be concurred with and
reiterated and supported by Shri Arun
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for
respondent-insurance
company
that
a
student of Engineering who had taken loan
could not serve as he had taken educational
loan and could not serve in a private firm.
It is submitted by Shri Srivastava that
reasoning of the Tribunal are germane and
the income of the deceased was rightly
considered to be Rs.3,000/- per month as
per he was a student and income is not
proved.

8. The reasoning given by the tribunal
is not only perverse but it has misled itself
and misread the judgement of the Apex
Court case titled Smt. Sarla Verma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and others,
2009 (3) RAJ 373 and has brushed aside
the judgments cited by claimants. As far as
reasonings and income of deceased are
concerned admitted position of facts are as
follows:-

(a) Deceased was Student of
Engineering and was 20 years of age;

(b) IT returns of the deceased
were filed;

(c) he was part time employed;
and

(d) the salary certificate is proved
by cogent evidence.

9. The tribunal held that as the income
of the deceased was not proved, therefore
daily wage of labourer should be considered
as an income and no amount for future loss
could be given. This again if fallacious
reading of the facts and non grant of future
loss is against the mandate of the Apex Court.

10. It is not proved to the contrary by
Insurance Company, therefore, placing not
reliance on the document by the tribunal
cannot be accepted by this Court as the
reason for not accepting IT returns, is that a
young student cannot travel to serve and thus
considered the minimum amount as income
of student.

11. The tribunal with due respect has
not taken what is known as holistic view of
the matter, the young boy who was aged
about 20 years was studying Engineering
even if go by the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Meena Pawaia & ors. Vs.
Ashraf Ali & ors, 2021 LawSuit (SC) 743
and the judgment cited of this Court and
Apex that the tribunal has taken a holistic
view in the matter even if the tribunal did not
believe that he was serving, the tribunal could
not have considered his income as that of a
labourer.

12. Having heard learned counsels for
the parties and considered the factual data,
the accident occurred on 25.05.2009 causing
death of Rahul Bansal who was also 20 years
of age and left behind him his father and
mother. The Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per
month is not just and proper, it requires to be
enhanced. The income as decided by the
tribunal requires interference by this Court.
The tribunal has also committed error in not
considering future prospects and personal
expenses of the deceased and granting
multiplier of 14 instead of 18 on basis of wife
as awarded by the tribunal requires to be
enhanced as per age of the deceased.

13. As far as beneficial piece of
legislation is concerned, the strict rules of
6 All. Smt. Sunita Bansal Gupta & Anr. Vs. Smt. Ranjana Gupta & Anr.
895
Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act are
not required to adhered to.

14. The tribunal has erred itself in
not considering the income and future
prospects as per age of the deceased. The
income
looking
to
the
private
employment
and
the
student
of
engineering,
his
income
must
be
Rs.10,000/- p.m. and same should be
considered. The deceased was below the
age of 40 years and self employed, hence
40% of the income will have to be added
in view of the decision of the Apex Court
in General Manager, Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation, Trivandrum
Versus Susamma Thomas reported in
1993 (0) AIJEL- SC 9412 reiterated in
Pranay Sethi (Supra). Looking to the
general trend even in Gobald Motor
Service Ltd. and another Vs. R.M.K
Veluswami and other, 1962 SCR(1)
929, the addition of 40% can be granted.
The tribunal even at the earliest judgment
it would not be committed this fallacy.

15. In this backdrop we evaluate the
income in view of the judgment of
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050 and Sarla Verma
Vs.
Delhi
Transport
Corporation,
(2009) 6 SCC 121 and, the recalculation
of compensation would be as follows:

i. Income Rs.10,000/- p.m.

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.4000/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 10,000 +
Rs. 4,000= Rs.14,000/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/2 : Rs.7000/-

v. Multiplier applicable : 18 (as
the deceased was in the age bracket of
15-20 years)

vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.7000
x 18 = Rs.1,26,000/-

vii. Annual income = Rs.1,26,000
x 12 =Rs.15,12,000/-

viii. Under the head of non
pecuniary
damages
=
Rs.50,000
+
Rs.50,000 (as children are 6 and 13 years
of age)= Rs.1,00,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.16,12,000/-.

16. The recent judgment of the Apex
Court in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali
Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu, 2021 (0)
AIJEL-SC 67995 will also have to be
looked into.

17. We deem it fit to rely on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
A.V. Padma and others Vs. R. Venugopal,
2012 (3) SCC 378 wherein the Apex Court
has considered the judgment rendered in
General Manager, Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs.
Susamma Thomas and others, AIR 1994
SC 1631.

18. 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 (supra), the order of investment is
not passed because applicants /claimants
are neither illiterate nor rustic villagers.

19. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Smt. Hansaguri 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.

20. 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.

21. 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
7 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."

22. 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 respondentInsurance Company shall deposit the
amount along with additional 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 already
deposited be deducted from the amount to
be deposited.

23. Recently the Gujarat High Court
in case titled 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, it
is held that interest awarded by the tribunal
under Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act is
not taxable under the Income Tax Act,
1961

24. The 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
13 years have elapsed since occurrence of
accident, the amount be deposited in the
Saving
Account
of
claimants
in
6 All. Smt. Pista Devi & Ors. Vs. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
897
Nationalized Bank. The amount shall be
credited in the said account without
investment.

25. We are thankful to learned
counsel for the parties for ably assisting
this court in getting this old appeal
disposed of.
----------
(2022)06ILR A897
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 2526 of 2014

Smt. Pista Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
 ....Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri B.P. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Kumar

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166 & 173 - Motor Accident claim
- Quantum of compensation - accident
took place in the year 2013 - deceased
was about 52 years of age and was
working on the post of Charge-man (F) in
Indian Oil Corporation, Mathura Refinery
& Rs 79876 per month was his salary -
Tribunal
did
not
grant
any
amount
towards future loss of income, granted
multiplier of 9 & granted only a sum of Rs.
5000 towards filial consortium - Held -
Multiplier is 11 for age group of 51 to 55
years - future loss to the dependents is
awarded at the rate of 20% of the income
of the deceased and compensation for non
pecuniary damages awarded Rs. 70,000
and towards the compensation for loss of
love and affection is awarded Rs. 30000
(Para 10)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr., 2009 Law Suit (SC)

2. Syed Basheer Ahamed & ors. Vs Mohd.
Jameel & anr, 2009 ACJ 690 (SC)

3. Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & anr. Vs R.M.K.
Veluswami & ors. [1962 SCR (1) 929]

4. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 0 SC 1050

5. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Urmila
Shukla & ors. 2021 ACJ page 2081

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

7. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax

8. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Vs U.O.I. & ors. order dated 27.1.2022

9. Smt. Hansagauri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., 2007(2) GLH 291

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

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

1. Heard Sri B.P. Verma, learned
counsel for the claimant-appellants and Sri
Arvind Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the New India Insurance Company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and