# Smt. Sushma Gupta v. Smt. Siya Peyari & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 402
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-25
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 566 of 2000
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sushma-gupta-v-smt-siya-peyari-ors-47590
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Ajeet Srivastava, Anil Srivastava, Siddharth
Sinha

Motor
accidental
Compensation
claim
challenged as to the factum of increase in
the future income and enhancement under
conventional
heads-monthly
income
considered on notional basis-increase in
future prospects of income would be
appliable on both income derived on the
basis of evidence or notional-amount
enhanced.
9 All. Smt. Sushma Gupta Vs. Smt. Siya Peyari & Ors.
403
Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
development and treatment of the same
theme in both the scripts. In the prima facie
opinion of this Court, there is, apart from
the fundamentals of the basic theme that
appear to have come from a common
source, no such distinctive feature in the
copyrighted version that have been prima
facie plagiarized. It must be remarked here
that whatever comparison has been done, is
not, in any manner, a final expression of
opinion on merits about the distinctive
similarities or the dissimilarities. That is
something that has to await trial, where
wholesome evidence would now be led. All
the remarks here are limited to the decision
of the temporary injunction matter and
nothing more.

55. Now, a still further issue that is
required to be examined is what would
happen if at the hearing, the plaintiff were
to ultimately succeed. Would damages
alone be recompense enough? There is
relief sought by way of a decree for
rendition of accounts of the advance
amount received by the defendants from
the
distribution
companies,
television
channels,
OTT
platforms,
television
networks by selling distribution rights/
streaming rights of the feature film,
infringing the plaintiff's copyright. The said
decree would entitle the plaintiff, if he
succeeds, to proportionate proceeds on
account, as may be determined that the film
earns. But, apart from that, if the copyright
is ultimately held to be infringed at the
trial, monetary compensation may not be
recompense enough. It is, therefore, to be
ordered that if the plaintiff succeeds, all
further displays of the feature film shall
have to carry an acknowledgment, suitably
to be displayed that the movie is based on
the copyrighted work, which is the
plaintiff's authorship. Also, the trial of the
suit is to be expedited. Since the learned
District Judge is hearing the suit himself,
he will proceed with the suit, fixing one
date every week and endeavour to conclude
the trial within four months.

56. Subject to the above directions,
the impugned order does not deserve to be
disturbed.

57. The appeal is disposed of in terms
of the aforesaid orders. Costs in this appeal
shall abide the event in the suit.

58. Let this order be communicated to
the District Judge, Ghaziabad by the
Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2021)09ILR A402
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

FAFO No. 566 of 2000

Smt. Sushma Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Siya Peyari & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
N.K. Seth, Ashish Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ajeet Srivastava, Anil Srivastava, Siddharth
Sinha

Motor
accidental
Compensation
claim
challenged as to the factum of increase in
the future income and enhancement under
conventional
heads-monthly
income
considered on notional basis-increase in
future prospects of income would be
appliable on both income derived on the
basis of evidence or notional-amount
enhanced.
9 All. Smt. Sushma Gupta Vs. Smt. Siya Peyari & Ors.
403
Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680

2. Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. N. K. Seth, Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Mr.
Ashish
Chaturvedi, learned counsel for claimantappellant and Mr. Anil Srivastava, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.3, the Oriental Insurance Company. The
other respondents being clearly proforma in
nature have not put in appearance.

2. First Appeal from Order has been
filed under Section 110-B of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 against the judgment
and award dated 07.09.2000 passed in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.83 of
1987 whereby the claim arising out of
death of the accident victim has been
allowed awarding a sum of Rs.6,89,500/-.

3. From a perusal of the impugned
judgment, it is apparent that the claim
petition had been filed for awarding a sum
of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum as compensation.
The accident is said to have occurred on
26.04.1987 at about 1:00 a.m. when the
deceased Rakesh Gupta along with others
was travelling in an Ambassador car and
met with an accident with a petrol tanker
coming
from
the
opposite
direction
resulting in fatal injuries to Rakesh Gupta
who subsequently succumbed to the
injuries while admitted in the hospital.
Initially, a claim petition had been filed by
the parents of the deceased but the same
was
dismissed
as
not
pressed.
Subsequently,
the
present
claimants/appellants being the widow and
daughter of the deceased have filed the
claim petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of appellant at the very outset
restricts his challenge to the impugned
judgment and award only with regard to the
factum of increase in the future income and
for enhancement under conventional heads.
It is submitted that although the claim
petition had been filed indicating monthly
income of deceased as Rs.25,000/- per
month but the Tribunal has held that the
aforesaid monthly income could not be
proved by the claimants and has thereafter
held an income of Rs.5,000/- per month to
be established with regard to the deceased.
Although it has been submitted that the
deceased was a jeweller by profession and
had purchased his own shop and had a
vehicle of his own, therefore, the income
assessed by the Tribunal is towards the
lower side but no challenge thereto is being
raised. Learned counsel for appellant has
submitted that in view of subsequent
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court has held that in case a deceased was
self-employed or was on a fixed salary, an
addition of 40% of the established income
is warranted where the deceased was below
the age of 40 years. It is submitted that
since in the present case, age of the
deceased was 31 years, the addition of 40%
to the established income was required.
Similarly, basing his claim on the aforesaid
judgment, it is submitted that reasonable
figures with regard to conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium
and funeral expenses with enhancement at
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the rate of 10 per cent in every three years
was also required to be made.

5. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent-insurance company
per contra has submitted that it is evident
from a reading of the impugned judgment
that the Tribunal has recorded that the
parents of the deceased had claimed the
income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per
month and since despite the said claim, the
income of the deceased has been assessed
at Rs.5,000/- per month, the prospects of
future increase in income has already been
taken care of by the Tribunal. It has also
been submitted that 'just compensation' as
indicated in the old Act of 1939 and the
new Act of 1988 has to be seen as on the
date of accident and not subsequently. In
view of aforesaid, it is submitted that the
Tribunal
has
already
provided
just
compensation as was required to be given
to the claimants and there is no error
whatsoever in the impugned judgment and
award on that score. It has also been
submitted that as per judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, interest at
the rate of 6 per cent per annum has been
awarded and even in the Rules framed in
terms of the Act of 1988, interest is
required to be awarded at the rate of 7 per
cent although the Tribunal has awarded
interest at the rate of 12 per cent per
annum, which is more than the just
compensation as required to be made and,
therefore, there is no requirement of
enhancement on that sore as well.

6. Learned counsel has further more
submitted that even as per judgment in the
case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra), the increase
in future prospects of income is required to
be calculated only in case of established
income and since in the present case, the
income of the deceased was not established
but was only arrived at by the Tribunal on
notional basis, the future prospects of
increase in income was not required to be
taken care of.

7. Upon consideration of material on
record and submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties, particularly
by
learned
counsel
for
answering
respondent it is evident that earlier the
insurance company had filed First Appeal
From Order No.633 of 2005 against the
impugned judgment and award which was
dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2005 on
the ground of limitation. Prior to that, the
Insurance Company had also filed Writ
Petition No.2930(M/S) of 2000 against the
impugned judgment and award in which
vide order dated 16.12.2004, the petitioner
Insurance Company was required to deposit
the
entire
amount
of
compensation
including interest under the judgment and
award. It is submitted that in terms thereof,
deposit was made before the Tribunal. It is
further submitted that in pursuance to the
directions passed by this Court in First
Appeal From Order No.633 of 2005, the
balance amount was deposed by the
Insurance Company and further more an
amount of 25,000/- as statutory deposit has
also been made at the time of filing of the
present appeal.

8. Upon a perusal of impugned
judgment and award, it appears that the
present claimants being the widow and
daughter of the deceased had filed the
claim petition indicating the income of the
deceased
as
Rs.25,000/-
per
month
claiming that he was engaged in the
profession of a jeweller. However, the
9 All. Smt. Sushma Gupta Vs. Smt. Siya Peyari & Ors.
405
Tribunal has disbelieved the income of the
deceased as claimed with specific recording
of a finding that the claimants were unable
to prove the aforesaid income by any
documentary or oral evidence. Learned
counsel for appellant submits that he is not
challenging the income taken by the
Tribunal as Rs.5,000/- per month with
regard to the deceased and is pressing the
appeal only on the ground of increase in the
future income as well as under the head of
conventional loss of income.

9. With regard to the submissions
pertaining to increase in future prospects of
income, learned counsel has placed reliance
on the decision in National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi(supra). It
is evident from a reading of the aforesaid
judgment that the same pertained to an
accident that had taken place after the
advent of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
whereas in the present case, the accident
had taken place at the time when the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 was prevailing.

10. Regarding the two enactments, it
is seen that the concept of payment of
compensation in the old Act of 1939 was
covered under Section 110-B, which is as
follows:-

"110-B. Award of the Claims
Tribunal. - On receipt of an application for
compensation made under section 110-A,
the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving the
parties an opportunity of being heard, hold
an inquiry into the claim and may make an
award
determining
the
amount
of
compensation which appears to it to be just
and specifying the person or persons to
whom compensation shall be paid; and in
making the award the Claims Tribunal
shall specify the amount which shall be
paid by the insurer or owner or driver of
the vehicle involved in the accident or by
all or any of them, as the case may be"

11. With the advent of new Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, the procedure for
award of Claims Tribunal and award of
compensation has been dealt with under
Section 168, which is as follows:-

"168 : Award of the Claims
Tribunal. - On receipt of an application for
compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice
of the application to the insurer and after
giving the parties (including the insurer) an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry
into the claim or, as the case may be, each
of the claims and, subject to the provisions
of section 163 may make an award
determining the amount of compensation
which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom
compensation shall be paid and in making
the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the
insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle
involved in the accident or by all or any of
them, as the case may be:

"Provided
that
where
such
application
makes
a
claim
for
compensation under section 140 in respect
of the death or permanent disablement of
any person, such claim and any other claim
(whether made in such application or
otherwise) for compensation in respect of
such death or permanent disablement shall
be disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter X."

(2) The Claims Tribunal shall
arrange to deliver copies of the award to
the parties concerned expeditiously and in
any case within a period of fifteen days
from the date of the award.

(3) When an award is made under
this section, the person who is required to
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pay any amount in terms of such award
shall, within thirty days of the date of
announcing the award by the Claims
Tribunal,
deposit
the
entire
amount
awarded in such manner as the Claims
Tribunal may direct. "

The proviso to Section 168(1) of
the Act of 1988 has been omitted with
effect from 01.09.2019.

12. Upon a comparison of aforesaid
two provisions, it is clear that the Claims
Tribunal on receipt of an application for
compensation is required to make an award
after holding an enquiry and determining
the amount of compensation which appears
to it to be 'just'. Both under Section 110-B
of the old Act and Section 168 of the new
Act, it is the duty of the Claims Tribunal in
case
of
awarding
compensation,
to
ascertain that the compensation awarded is
'just'. From a comparison of the aforesaid
two provisions, it is apparent that the
Claims Tribunal while making award of
compensation is required to determine the
amount which appears to it to be just. As
such both the provisions with regard to
aforesaid fact appear to be pari materia.

13. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra) has explained
the concept of increase in future prospects
of income which is relatable to the concept
of the term 'just compensation'. It has been
held that to follow the doctrine of annual
income at the time of death and not to add
any amount with regard to future prospects
to
the
income
for
the purpose
of
determination of multiplicand would be
unjust
and
the
computation
of
compensation
has
to
include
future
prospects so that the method will come
within the ambit and sweep of just
compensation as postulated under Section
168 of the Act. The relevant portion of the
judgment
in
the
case
of
National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
(supra) is as follows:-

"57.Having bestowed our anxious
consideration, we are disposed to think
when
we
accept
the
principle
of
standardisation, there is really no rationale
not to apply the said principle to the selfemployed or a person who is on a fixed
salary. To follow the doctrine of actual
income at the time of death and not to add
any amount with regard to future prospects
to
the
income
for
the
purpose
of
determination of multiplicand would be
unjust. The determination of income while
computing compensation has to include
future prospects so that the method will
come within the ambit and sweep of just
compensation as postulated under Section
168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who
had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant
of annual increment, there is an acceptable
certainty. But to state that the legal
representatives of a deceased who was on a
fixed salary would not be entitled to the
benefit of future prospects for the purpose
of computation of compensation would be
inapposite. It is because the criterion of
distinction between the two in that event
would be certainty on the one hand and
staticness on the other. One may perceive
that the comparative measure is certainty
on the one hand and uncertainty on the
other but such a perception is fallacious. It
is because the price rise does affect a selfemployed person; and that apart there is
always an incessant effort to enhance one's
income for sustenance. The purchasing
capacity of a salaried person on permanent
job when increases because of grant of
increments and pay revision or for some
other change in service conditions, there is
always a competing attitude in the private
9 All. Smt. Sushma Gupta Vs. Smt. Siya Peyari & Ors.
407
sector to enhance the salary to get better
efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a
person who is self-employed is bound to
garner his resources and raise his
charges/fees so that he can live with same
facilities. To have the perception that he is
likely to remain static and his income to
remain stagnant is contrary to the
fundamental concept of human attitude
which
always
intends
to
live
with
dynamism and move and change with the
time. Though it may seem appropriate that
there cannot be certainty in addition of
future prospects to the existing income
unlike in the case of a person having a
permanent job, yet the said perception
does not really deserve acceptance. We
are inclined to think that there can be
some degree of difference as regards the
percentage that is meant for or applied to
in respect of the legal representatives who
claim on behalf of the deceased who had a
permanent job than a person who is selfemployed or on a fixed salary. But not to
apply the principle of standardisation on
the foundation of perceived lack of
certainty would tantamount to remaining
oblivious to the marrows of ground
reality. And, therefore, degree-test is
imperative. Unless the degree-test is
applied and left to the parties to adduce
evidence to establish, it would be unfair
and inequitable. The degree-test has to
have the inbuilt concept of percentage.
Taking into consideration the cumulative
factors, namely, passage of time, the
changing society, escalation of price, the
change in price index, the human attitude
to follow a particular pattern of life, etc.,
an addition of 40% of the established
income of the deceased towards future
prospects and where the deceased was
below 40 years an addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to
50 years would be reasonable."

14. It is a relevant factor that the
judgment
in
National
Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra)
has been rendered in the year 2017 whereas
the accident in the present case had taken
place in the year 1987 at the time when the
old Act of 1939 was prevailing. However,
as has already been noticed herein above,
the provisions pertaining to award of just
compensation as indicated in Section 110-B
of the Act of 1939 and Section 168 of the
Act of 1988 are pari materia and since the
judgment
in
National
Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra)
with regard to increase in future prospects
of income is based on the concept of just
compensation, it is held that the judgment
in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi (supra) although passed
under the new Act of 1988 in the year
2017, would have retrospective application
with regard to accidents having taken place
under the old Act of 1939 particularly in
view of the term 'just compensation' as
indicated in Section 110-B of the Act of
1939. As such, it is held that the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Pranay
Sethi
(supra)
would
have
retrospective application with regard to just
compensation and consequences following
there from.

15. Learned counsel for answeringrespondent has submitted that since the
Tribunal has already taken the income of
deceased as Rs.5000/- per month instead of
Rs.3,000/- per month claimed by the
parents
of
the
deceased,
it
would
necessarily imply that increase in future
prospects of income has been taken care of
by the Tribunal. Regarding the aforesaid
submission, it is apparent that it was the
parents of the deceased who had claimed an
income of Rs.3,000/- per month pertaining
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the deceased but the present claimants
had
always
claimed
an
income
of
Rs.25,000/- per month of the deceased who
was alleged to be engaged in the profession
of a jeweller. The Tribunal has recorded a
finding that the claimants were unable to
prove income of Rs.25,000/- per month
either by any documentary or oral evidence
and has thereafter recorded the income of
the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. In
such circumstances, it is evident that the
Tribunal has considerably scaled down the
income of the deceased from Rs.25,000/-
per month to Rs.5,000/- per month and
there is in fact no increase in the income of
the deceased recorded by the Tribunal. The
income claimed by the parents of the
deceased would be completely irrelevant in
the present circumstances considering the
fact that the claim petition filed by the
parents of the deceased earlier had already
been dismissed as not pressed. The claim
petition filed by the claimants herein has to
be taken as per the pleadings indicated in
the present claim petition and not of any
other
claim
petition.
As
such,
the
submission
of
learned
counsel
for
answering respondent that the Tribunal has
increased the income of the deceased over
and above that has been claimed, does not
appear from the record and the argument
therefore is rejected.

16. It has also been submitted by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent
insurance
company
that
excessive interest has been granted by the
Tribunal which, therefore also indicates
that just compensation over and above
which was required has already been
granted. It has been submitted that in Sarla
Verma(supra), interest has been granted at
the rate of 6% per annum while in the
present case, interest has been granted at
the rate of 12% per annum. It is noticeable
that the appeal filed by the answering
respondent has already been dismissed vide
judgment and order dated 23.08.2005 as
noticed herein above and there is no other
challenge to the impugned judgment and
award. In the absence of any challenge to
the impugned judgment and award at
present at the instance of the answering
respondent
insurance
company,
no
exception can be taken to the interest
awarded by the Tribunal.

17. Learned counsel for the answering
respondent has also submitted that even as
per
judgment
rendered
in
National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi(supra), increase in future prospects of
income has been taken only in case of
established income and not on the basis of
notional income and therefore since in the
present case, the income taken by the
Tribunal
is
only
notional
and
not
established, there cannot be any increase
with regard to future prospects.

18. The aforesaid aspect regarding
increase in future prospects of income has
been dealt with in paragraph 59.4 of the
decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi(supra), which is as
follows:-

"59.4.In case the deceased was
self-employed or on a fixed salary, an
addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased
was below the age of 40 years. An addition
of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income
minus the tax component."
9 All. Smt. Sushma Gupta Vs. Smt. Siya Peyari & Ors.
409

19. From a perusal of the aforesaid
judgment, it is evident that addition in the
future prospects of income has to be taken
in case of established income. It is also
noticeable that notional income as per the
Act of 1988 has been taken as Rs.3,000/-
per month. In the present case, the Tribunal
after disbelieving the income indicated by
the claimants has taken the income of the
deceased
as
Rs.5,000/-
per
month.
Although there is no evidence indicated by
the Tribunal regarding fixing of the
aforesaid income of the deceased but the
same in any case cannot be taken as
notional income. Income determined by the
Tribunal with regard to the deceased
whether on the basis of evidence or
otherwise even on the basis of notional
would definitely be held as established
income since it is based on a finding
recorded by the Tribunal. Even if the
Tribunal records income of a deceased
person as notional, the same necessarily
implies that such an income has been
established by the Tribunal and as such it
cannot be said that notional income arrived
at by the Tribunal would not amount to
established income. Consequently, the
increase in future prospects of income
would definitely be applicable whether the
income derived at by the Tribunal is on the
basis of evidence or even if taken to be
notional.
The
submission
of
learned
counsel for answering respondent to the
contrary is, therefore rejected.

20. Considering the aforesaid aspects
of the matter, and as has already been held
herein above, the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi(supra) would be applicable even in
the present case where the accident had
taken place prior to the advent of the Act of
1988. In view thereof, it would be evident
that the concept of increase in future
prospects of income as indicated in the said
judgment would be applicable.

21. It is admitted by the parties and as
has been held by the Tribunal that the age
of the deceased at the time of the accident
was 31 years. Increase in the established
income as indicated in the judgment in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi(supra) is 40% in case the age
of the deceased was below the age of 40
years. As such, it would be appropriate that
the increase in future prospects of income
with regard to the deceased is taken as 40%
of the income established by the Tribunal
pertaining to the deceased.

22. Similarly, in paragraph 59.8 of the
decision in National Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi(supra), reasonable
figures regarding conventional heads for
loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses have been taken as
Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-
respectively which would be appropriate to
award in the present case.

23. Considering the aforesaid aspect
of the matter, the compensation awarded to
the applicant would stand revised as
hereinafter provided:-

The
Tribunal
has
assessed
monthly income of deceased at Rs.5,000/-
per month, which is now required to be
enhanced by 40%, which would lead to an
income of Rs.7,000/- per month. Hence the
annual income of deceased would stand at
Rs.84,000/-. Considering the deceased
would have spent one-third of his annual
income towards maintaining himself, the
annual income as such would stand reduced
to Rs.56,000/- (84,000 ÷ 1⁄3 = Rs.28,000,
84,000(-)28,000
=
Rs.56,000/-).
The
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tribunal has taken the multiplier at 17 with
which learned counsel for appellant does
not have
any objection. Hence
the
compensation would stand at Rs.9,52,000/-
(56,000 X 17).

Descrip
tion
Award
ed
by
Tribun
al
Modified/en
hanced
by
this Court
Differenc
e
compen
sation
Rs.6,89,
500/-
9,52,000/-
Rs.2,62,5
00/-
loss of
estate
Rs.2,50
0/-
Rs.15,000/-
Rs.12,50
0/-
loss of
consorti
um
Rs.5,00
0/-
Rs.40,000/-
Rs.35,00
0/-
funeral
expense
s
Rs.2,00
0/-
Rs.15,000/-
Rs.13,00
0/-
TOTA
L

Rs.3,23,0
00/-
rate of
interest
on
the
amount
awarde
d by the
Tribuna
l.
12% per
annum
from
effectiv
e
date
as
stipulat
ed
in
the
award.
remains the
same
as
awarded by
the Tribunal
with
no
modification
by
this
Court.

rate of
interest
entitled
by
claiman
ts
on
the
enhance
d
amount
Not
applica
ble
6%
per
annum from
the date of
institution of
appeal
before
this
Court
i.e.
18.12.2020
till
actual
payment
to
s.
the
claimants.

24. Consequently, the appeal succeeds
and is allowed modifying the judgment and
award dated 07.09.2000 passed in Claim
Petition No.83 of 1987 in the aforesaid
terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

25. Since it is submitted that the
insurance company has already made
certain deposits of the compensation
awarded some of which apparently has
already been withdrawn by the claimants, it
is therefore provided that the enhanced
compensation would be paid to the
claimants after adjusting the amount that
have already been paid to them. The
claimants would also be entitled to the
statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- which has
been deposited at the time of filing of the
present appeal.
----------

(2021)09ILR A410
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2021

BEFORE

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

FAFO No. 724 of 2010

Smt. Rahisa Begum (since deceased) &
Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Shri Susheel Chandra Gupta & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondents: