# Smt. Sushila & Ors v. Amar Pal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 337
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-15
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 119 of 2018
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sushila-ors-v-amar-pal-ors-47521
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- Section 174 - Recovery of money from
insurer as arrear of land revenue -
principle of "res ipsa loquitur" - "the
things speak for itself" - principle of
contributory
negligence
-
difference
between contributory and composite
negligence - A
person
who
either
contributes or author of the accident
would be liable for his contribution to
the accident having taken place.(Para -
8)

Motor accident claims petition - filed by the
appellants for compensation in connection
with the death of the deceased - award a
sum of Rs. 8,54,800 @ 7% - Tribunal not
awarded any sum towards future loss of
income - Deceased in transport business -
income tax payee - wife of the deceased
getting her share of income from the
transport business - Tribunal held that
deceased was liable for 20% contributory
negligence.

HELD:-Tribunal
justified
in
holding
contributory negligence of the deceased ,
which is to the tune of 20% . Total
compensation payable to the appellants is
17,45,600/- . Appellants entitled to have
compensation for future loss of income . Rate
of interest fixed at 7.5% instead of 7% per
annum . Findings of the tribunal set aside and
direction issued to pay the interest to the
appellants from the date of filing of the claim
petition . Judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal modified. (Para - 12,13,15,16,17)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

2 All. Smt. Sushila & Ors. Vs. Amar Pal & Ors.
337
satisfaction of the Court concerned in
compliance with Section 437-A of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(62) Let a copy of this judgment and
the original record be transmitted to the
trial
court
concerned
forthwith
for
necessary information and compliance.
----------
(2022)02ILR A337
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 119 of 2018

Smt. Sushila & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Amar Pal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Mirza Ali Zulfqar, Sri Sandeep Kumar
Tripathi, Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Prakash

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- Section 174 - Recovery of money from
insurer as arrear of land revenue -
principle of "res ipsa loquitur" - "the
things speak for itself" - principle of
contributory
negligence
-
difference
between contributory and composite
negligence - A
person
who
either
contributes or author of the accident
would be liable for his contribution to
the accident having taken place.(Para -
8)

Motor accident claims petition - filed by the
appellants for compensation in connection
with the death of the deceased - award a
sum of Rs. 8,54,800 @ 7% - Tribunal not
awarded any sum towards future loss of
income - Deceased in transport business -
income tax payee - wife of the deceased
getting her share of income from the
transport business - Tribunal held that
deceased was liable for 20% contributory
negligence.

HELD:-Tribunal
justified
in
holding
contributory negligence of the deceased ,
which is to the tune of 20% . Total
compensation payable to the appellants is
17,45,600/- . Appellants entitled to have
compensation for future loss of income . Rate
of interest fixed at 7.5% instead of 7% per
annum . Findings of the tribunal set aside and
direction issued to pay the interest to the
appellants from the date of filing of the claim
petition . Judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal modified. (Para - 12,13,15,16,17)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs
Smt. Renu Singh & ors., First Appeal From
Order No. 1818 of 2012

2. Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &
ors., 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469

3. T.O. Anthony Vs Karvarnan & ors. 2008 (3)
SCC 748

4. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Urmila
Shukla ,2021 ACJ 2081

5. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. ,2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)

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

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

8. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr. ,
First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001

9. Tej Kumari Sharma Vs Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Insurance Co. Ltd., First Appeal From
Order No.2871 of 2016
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the
appellants (legal heirs of the deceased)
have challenged the judgment and order
dated
10.10.2017,
passed
by
Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge,
Rampur (herein after referred to as 'the
Tribunal')
in
Motor
Accident
Claim
Petition No.129 of 2016 (Smt.Sushila and
others vs. Amar Pal and others), whereby
the
Tribunal
awarded
a
sum
of
Rs.8,54,800/- with a default clause that for
21.5.2016 till the amount is deposited, 7%
interest would approve as per Section 174
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar
Tripathi, learned brief-holder appearing for
Shri Sandeep Kumar Tripathi, learned
counsel
for
the
appellants-claimants,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company
and perused the record.

3. Motor accident claims petition was
filed by the appellants for compensation in
connection with the death of the deceased
Motilal Yadav with the averments that on
7.2.2016, deceased Motilal Yadav was
going with his relative Teerth Raj Yadav by
driving Car No. UK06AG-3903 from
Rampur to Rudrapur, District-Udhamsingh
Nagar. At about 8:00 a.m., when he
reached near Ishanagar Chauki, a Bolero
No.UP22U-3651 came from the side of
Rudrapur, which was being driven very
rashly and negligently by its driver hit the
car. Due to this accident, the car of the
deceased fell into a ditch. In this accident,
Motilal Yadav and Teerth Raj Yadav
sustained injuries and Motilal Yadav
succumbed to injuries on the way to
hospital. It is also stated that deceased
Motilal Yadav was in the business of
transport. He was having 12 trucks and his
income was Rs.40,000/- per month. He was
also income tax payee. The respondents
filed their respective written statements.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant that the deceased was
income tax payee and he was in the business
of transport. His monthly income was
Rs.40,000/-, but the Tribunal has assessed
his monthly income at Rs.12,000/-, which is
on a lower-side. It is also submitted that
learned Tribunal has not awarded any sum
towards future loss of income. The Tribunal
has recorded the findings, wherein the
appellant No.1 has stated that the business of
transport is being looked after by the
brothers of the deceased and she is getting
the income of her share. On the basis of this
evidence, Tribunal has held that there is no
loss of income from business, but business
could grow in future, if the deceased was
alive. It is next submitted by learned counsel
for the appellants that in the heads of nonpecuniary damages, Tribunal has awarded
Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/-
for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral
expenses, which are also on lower-side
whereas rate of interest is allowed only 7%,
which should also be enhanced. No other
point
regarding
the
quantum
of
compensation is pressed. On the point of
negligence,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants submitted that deceased was not
negligent while driving the car at the time of
accident and the driver of the Bolero car was
solely negligent. Therefore, the Tribunal has
wrongly
assessed
20%
contributory
negligence of the deceased and the finding
pertaining to contributory negligence may
be set aside and entire compensation should
be paid to the appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has submitted that as per the
evidence of wife of the deceased, she is
2 All. Smt. Sushila & Ors. Vs. Amar Pal & Ors.
339
getting her share of income, which is
generated from the transport business,
therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly held
that there was no loss of future income due
to death of the deceased. With regard to the
contributory negligence, he has submitted
that evidence on record clearly transpires
that the deceased was himself negligent in
driving the car and the Tribunal has rightly
fixed 20% contributory negligence of the
deceased.

6. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, let us consider the
negligence from the perspective of the law
laid down.

7. The term negligence means failure
to exercise care towards others which a
reasonable and prudent person would in a
circumstance or taking action which such a
reasonable person would not. Negligence
can be both intentional or accidental which
is normally accidental. More particularly, it
connotes reckless driving and the injured
must always prove that the either side is
negligent. If the injury rather death is
caused by something owned or controlled
by the negligent party then he is directly
liable otherwise the principle of "res ipsa
loquitur" meaning thereby "the things
speak for itself" would apply.

8. The principle of contributory
negligence has been discussed time and
again. A person who either contributes or
author of the accident would be liable for
his contribution to the accident having
taken place.

9. The Division Bench of this Court
in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of
2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And Others)
decided on 19.7.2016 has held as under :

"16. Negligence means failure to
exercise required degree of care and
caution expected of a prudent driver.
Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided upon the
considerations, which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is not always a question of direct evidence.
It is an inference to be drawn from proved
facts. Negligence is not an absolute term,
but is a relative one. It is rather a
comparative term. What may be negligence
in one case may not be so in another.
Where there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no
legal consequence. Where there is a duty to
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen likely to
caused physical injury to person. The
degree of care required, of course, depends
upon facts in each case. On these broad
principles, the negligence of drivers is
required to be assessed.

17. It would be seen that burden of
proof for contributory negligence on the
part of deceased has to be discharged by
the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident. It
is well settled law that at intersection
where two roads cross each other, it is the
duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down
and if driver did not slow down at
intersection, but continued to proceed at a
high speed without caring to notice that
another vehicle was crossing, then the
conduct of driver necessarily leads to
conclusion that vehicle was being driven by
him rashly as well as negligently.

18. 10th Schedule appended to Motor
Vehicle Act contain statutory regulations
for driving of motor vehicles which also
form part of every Driving License. Clause-
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6 of such Regulation clearly directs that the
driver of every motor vehicle to slow down
vehicle at every intersection or junction of
roads or at a turning of the road. It is also
provided that driver of the vehicle should
not enter intersection or junction of roads
unless he makes sure that he would not
thereby
endanger
any
other
person.
Merely, because driver of the Truck was
driving vehicle on the left side of road
would
not
absolve
him
from
his
responsibility to slow down vehicle as he
approaches
intersection
of
roads,
particularly when he could have easily
seen, that the car over which deceased was
riding, was approaching intersection.

19. In view of the fast and constantly
increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles
upon roads may be regarded to some extent
as coming within the principle of liability
defined in Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3
HL (LR) 330. From the point of view of
pedestrian, the roads of this country have
been rendered by the use of motor vehicles,
highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases
where drivers of motor vehicles who have
caused accidents, are unknown. In fact
such cases are increasing in number.
Where a pedestrian without negligence on
his part is injured or killed by a motorist,
whether negligently or not, he or his legal
representatives, as the case may be, should
be entitled to recover damages if principle
of social justice should have any meaning
at all.

20. These provisions (section 110A
and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not
merely
procedural
provisions.
They
substantively affect the rights of the parties.
The right of action created by Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species,
new in its quality, new in its principles. In
every way it was new. The right given to
legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file
an application for compensation for death
due to a motor vehicle accident is an
enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged
in by limitations of an action under Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and
new dangers require new strategies and
new remedies.

21. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that even if
courts may not by interpretation displace
the principles of law which are considered
to be well settled and, therefore, court
cannot dispense with proof of negligence
altogether in all cases of motor vehicle
accidents, it is possible to develop the law
further on the following lines; when a
motor
vehicle
is
being
driven
with
reasonable care, it would ordinarily not
meet with an accident and, therefore, rule
of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence
may be invoked in motor accident cases
with greater frequency than in ordinary
civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob
Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0
ACJ(SC) 1840).

22. By the above process, the burden
of proof may ordinarily be cast on the
defendants in a motor accident claim
petition to prove that motor vehicle was
being driven with reasonable care or that
there is equal negligence on the part the
other side."

(Emphasis added )

10. The Apex Court in Khenyei Vs.
New India Assurance Company Limited &
Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469 has held as
under:

"4. It is a case of composite
negligence where injuries have been
caused to the claimants by combined
wrongful act of joint tort feasors. In a case
of accident caused by negligence of joint
tort feasors, all the persons who aid or
counsel or direct or join in committal of a
2 All. Smt. Sushila & Ors. Vs. Amar Pal & Ors.
341
wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the
liability is always joint and several. The
extent of negligence of joint tort feasors in
such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of
the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need
not be determined by the by the court.
However, in case all the joint tort feasors
are before the court, it may determine the
extent of their liability for the purpose of
adjusting inter-se equities between them at
appropriate stage. The liability of each and
every joint tort feasor vis a vis to
plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it
is joint and several liability. In the case of
composite negligence, apportionment of
compensation between tort feasors for
making payment to the plaintiff is not
permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the
right to recover the entire amount from the
easiest targets/solvent defendant."

11. There is a difference between
contributory and composite negligence. In
the case of contributory negligence, a
person who has himself contributed to the
extent cannot claim compensation for the
injuries sustained by him in the accident to
the extent of his own negligence;whereas in
the case of composite negligence, a person
who has suffered has not contributed to the
accident but the outcome of combination of
negligence of two or more other persons.
This Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan
& Ors. 2008 (3) SCC 748 has held that in
case of composite negligence, injured need
not establish the extent of responsibility of
each wrong doer separately, nor is it
necessary for the court to determine the
extent of liability of each wrong doer
separately. It is only in the case of
contributory negligence that the injured
himself has contributed by his negligence
in the accident. Extent of his negligence is
required to be determined as damages
recoverable by him in respect of the
injuries have to be reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence. The relevant
portion is extracted hereunder :

"6. 'Composite negligence' refers to
the negligence on the part of two or more
persons. Where a person is injured as a
result of negligence on the part of two or
more wrong doers, it is said that the person
was injured on account of the composite
negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a
case, each wrong doer, is jointly and
severally liable to the injured for payment
of the entire damages and the injured
person has the choice of proceeding
against all or any of them. In such a case,
the injured need not establish the extent of
responsibility
of
each
wrong-doer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrong-doer separately. On the other hand
where a person suffers injury, partly due to
the negligence on the part of another
person or persons, and partly as a result of
his own negligence, then the negligence of
the part of the injured which contributed to
the accident is referred to as his
contributory negligence. Where the injured
is guilty of some negligence, his claim for
damages is not defeated merely by reason
of the negligence on his part but the
damages recoverable by him in respect of
the injuries stands reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence.

7. Therefore, when two vehicles are
involved in an accident, and one of the
drivers claims compensation from the other
driver alleging negligence, and the other
driver denies negligence or claims that the
injured claimant himself was negligent,
then it becomes necessary to consider
whether the injured claimant was negligent
and if so, whether he was solely or partly
responsible for the accident and the extent
of his responsibility, that is his contributory
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
negligence. Therefore where the injured is
himself partly liable, the principle of
'composite negligence' will not apply nor
can there be an automatic inference that
the negligence was 50:50 as has been
assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to
have examined the extent of contributory
negligence of the appellant and thereby
avoided
confusion
between
composite
negligence and contributory negligence.
The High Court has failed to correct the
said error."

18.
This
Court
in
Challa
Bharathamma &Nanjappan (supra) has
dealt with the breach of policy conditions
by the owner when the insurer was asked to
pay the compensation fixed by the tribunal
and the right to recover the same was given
to the insurer in the executing court
concerned if the dispute between the
insurer and the owner was the subjectmatter of determination for the tribunal
and the issue has been decided in favour of
the insured. The same analogy can be
applied to the instant cases as the liability
of the joint tort feasor is joint and several.
In the instant case, there is determination
of inter se liability of composite negligence
to the extent of negligence of 2/3rd and
1/3rd of respective drivers. Thus, the
vehicle - trailor-truck which was not
insured with the insurer, was negligent to
the extent of 2/3rd. It would be open to the
insurer being insurer of the bus after
making payment to claimant to recover
from the owner of the trailor-truck the
amount to the aforesaid extent in the
execution proceedings. Had there been no
determination of the inter se liability for
want of evidence or other joint tort feasor
had not been impleaded, it was not open to
settle such a dispute and to recover the
amount in execution proceedings but the
remedy would be to file another suit or
appropriate proceedings in accordance
with law.

What emerges from the aforesaid
discussion is as follows :

(i)
In
the
case
of
composite
negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to
sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors
and to recover the entire compensation as
liability of joint tort feasors is joint and
several.

(ii)
In
the
case
of
composite
negligence, apportionment of compensation
between two tort feasors vis a vis the
plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He
can recover at his option whole damages
from any of them.

(iii) In case all the joint tort feasors
have been impleaded and evidence is
sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to
determine inter se extent of composite
negligence
of
the
drivers.
However,
determination of the extent of negligence
between the joint tort feasors is only for the
purpose of their inter se liability so that
one may recover the sum from the other
after making whole of payment to the
plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has
satisfied the liability of the other. In case
both of them have been impleaded and the
apportionment/ extent of their negligence
has been determined by the court/tribunal,
in main case one joint tort feasor can
recover the amount from the other in the
execution proceedings.

(iv) It would not be appropriate for the
court/tribunal to determine the extent of
composite negligence of the drivers of two
vehicles in the absence of impleadment of
other joint tort feasors. In such a case,
impleaded joint tort feasor should be left,
in case he so desires, to sue the other joint
tort feasor in independent proceedings
after passing of the decree or award."

 (Emphasis added)
2 All. Smt. Sushila & Ors. Vs. Amar Pal & Ors.
343

12. We threadbare perused the
evidence on record. As far as finding of
contributory
negligence
is
concerned,
Tribunal has held that deceased was liable
for 20% contributory negligence. The latest
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Khenyei (supra) has laid down one further
aspect about considering the negligence,
more particularly composite/contributory
negligence. The deceased or the person
concerned should be shown to have
contributed either to the accident or the
impact of accident upon the victim could
have been minimized if he has taken care.
In this case, Teerth Raj Yadav (PW2) was
sitting in the car of the deceased at the time
of accident. Being the best eye-witness of
the accident, he has stated before the
Tribunal that at the time of accident, he and
the deceased had seen the Bolero car from
at the distance of 150-200 mtrs. and he had
told the deceased to save the accident.
Hence, it is crystal clear from the evidence
of eye-witness (PW2) that deceased was
also negligent in driving the car and
certainly he was also responsible for the
accident. In our opinion, Tribunal was
justified in holding contributory negligence
of the deceased also, which is to the tune of
20% and this finding of Tribunal is
maintained as it is just and proper in the
given circumstances of the case.

13. Now, this takes this Court to the
issue of compensation. The income of the
deceased is assessed at Rs.12,000/- per month
by the Tribunal. It is not disputed that the
deceased was in transport business and he
was income tax payee. No doubt, the wife of
the deceased had deposed that she is getting
her share of income from the transport
business, which is being looked after by the
brothers of the deceased, but the assessment
of Tribunal is not justified and we fix the
income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per
month. It cannot be ruled out that deceased
could give the growth to his business, if he
was alive. Hence, appellants are entitled to
have compensation for future loss of income
also. The deceased was self-employed. At the
time of death, his age was 53 years.
Therefore, as per the decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
vs. Urmila Shukla [2021 ACJ 2081], 20%
shall be added in the income of the deceased
towards future prospects. There is no dispute
between the parties regarding the deduction
of 1/3 for personal expenses of the deceased
and multiplier of 11, but in our opinion, the
non-pecuniary damages, awarded by the
Tribunal, are on the lower side. As per the
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, in National
Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and
others [2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)], appellants
shall be entitled for Rs.15,000/- each, towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate. Appellant
No.1-wife of the deceased shall also be
entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants is re-computed
herein below:

i. Income Rs.20,000/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: 20% namely Rs.4000/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 20,000/- +
Rs.4000/- = Rs.24,000/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 :
Rs.16,000/- (rounded up)

v. Annual income : Rs.16,000 x 12 =
Rs.1,92,000/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 11

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.1,92,000
x 11 = Rs.21,12,000/-

viii. Amount under non-pecuniary
head : Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- +
Rs.40,000/- = Rs.70,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.21,12,000/-
+
Rs.70,000/-
=
Rs.21,82,000/-
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

x. Compensation after deduction of 20%
towards contributory negligence : Rs. 21,82,000Rs.4,36,400/- = Rs.17,45,600/-

14. 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."

15. Learned Tribunal has awarded rate of
interest as 7% per annum but we are fixing the
rate of interest as 7.5% in the light of the above
judgment.

16. Tribunal has committed grave error
while awarding the interest from the date of
filing the written statement by the Insurance
Company-respondent No.2. This is an absurd
finding, which cannot be appreciated at all. We
set aside this finding and direct to pay the interest
to the appellants from the date of filing of the
claim petition.

17. 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 Insurance Company shall deposit the
amount within a period of 8 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.

18. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt.
Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., [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.
----------
(2022)02ILR A344
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 265 of 2011

Smt. Pratima Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Singh & Ors. ...Respondents