# Smt. Vimla Sharma v. Krishna Kumar & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 854
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-29
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 649 of 2017
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-vimla-sharma-v-krishna-kumar-anr-46649
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim - Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
-
Section
168
-
11 All. Smt. Vimla Sharma Vs. Krishna Kumar & Anr.
855
Enhancement of Compensation - deceased
aged about 27 years, was teacher with income
of Rs. 15,000/- per month, left behind him his
mother - Tribunal not granted future loss of
income - Tribunal granted multiplier of 12
considering the age of mother - Held - Court
granted 50% addition towards future loss of
income as the deceased was below age of 40
years & was in regular service - multiplier
should be considered on the basis of the age of
the deceased - multiplier of 17 as the deceased
was in the age bracket of 26-30 (Para 9)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

viii. Amount under non-pecuniary
head : Rs. 70,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.
31,36,876/-

17. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the decision
of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, reported in 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."

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

19. 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
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.

20. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble
Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagori
P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd., reported in 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 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) 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.

21. This Court is thankful to both the learned
Advocates for getting this matter disposed of during
this pandemic.
----------
(2021)11ILR A854
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 649 of 2017

Smt. Vimla Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
Krishna Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Singh, Sri Amit Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajkapoor Upadhyay, Sri Radhey Shyam, Sri
N.K. Srivastava

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim - Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
-
Section
168
-
11 All. Smt. Vimla Sharma Vs. Krishna Kumar & Anr.
855
Enhancement of Compensation - deceased
aged about 27 years, was teacher with income
of Rs. 15,000/- per month, left behind him his
mother - Tribunal not granted future loss of
income - Tribunal granted multiplier of 12
considering the age of mother - Held - Court
granted 50% addition towards future loss of
income as the deceased was below age of 40
years & was in regular service - multiplier
should be considered on the basis of the age of
the deceased - multiplier of 17 as the deceased
was in the age bracket of 26-30 (Para 9)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation
& anr. 2009 Law Suit (SC) 613

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

3. General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum Vs
Susamma Thomas & ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176

4. U.P.S.R.T.C. & ors. Vs Trilok Chandra & ors. (1996)
4 SCC 362

5. Sarla Dixit Vs Balwant Yadav AIR 1996 SC 1274

6. Hardeo Kaur Vs Rajasthan State Transport Cor.
1992 2 SCC 567

7. Puttamma Vs K.L.Narayana Reddy AIR 2014 SC 706

8. Raman Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.

9. Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs Bidyadhar Dutta 2006 (3)
SCC 242

10. R.K.Malik Vs Kiran Pal AIR 2009 SC 2506

11. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi AIR
2017 SC 5157

12. Raj Rani Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009 (13)
SCC 654

13. Ritaben @ Vanitaben Wd/o. Dipakbhai Hariram &
anr. Vs Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service &
anr. 1998 (2) G.L.H. 670
14. Munna Lal Jain & anr. Vs Vipin Kumar Sharma &
ors. 2015 (6) SCALE 552

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

16. A.Vs Padma Vs Venugopal 2012 (1) GLH (SC),
442

17. Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. 2007(2) GLH 291

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. By way of this appeal, the claimants
have challenged the judgment and order dated
26.11.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.7,
Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
M.A.C.P. No. 02 of 2015 awarding sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants
with interest at the rate of 7%.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The
Insurance Company has not challenged the
liability imposed on them. Hence, the only issue
to be decided is, the quantum of compensation
awarded. The details of facts except for deciding
compensation are not narrated.

4. It is submitted that deceased-Pawan
Sharma who was a teacher by profession left
behind him his mother. He was 27 years of age
on the date of accident namely on 12.12.2014.
Learned counsel for the appellant does not
dispute the decision of the Tribunal on the basis
that the income was Rs.15,000/- per month but,
disputes that despite the judgment of the Apex
Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another, 2009
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
LawSuit (SC) 613 & National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050, no future
loss of income has been considered by the
Tribunal though the deceased was serving in
Shanti Niketan World School, P.A.C. Ramghat
Road Aligarh as teacher (P.T.I. Post). It is
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that the Tribunal has not assigned any reason for
non granting the future loss of income. The next
contention is that the Tribunal has granted
multiplier of 12 considering the age of mother
and granted and has granted only Rs.10,000/-
under the head of non pecuniary damages which
is bad. Learned counsel for the appellant
contend that the multiplier should be considered
on the basis of the age of the deceased and it
should be 17. It is further submitted that the
amount under the head of non-pecuniary
damages should be as per the decision of the
Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). It is also
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on
the lower side and is required to be enhanced.

5. Sri Radhey Shyam, learned Advocate
appearing for Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company
has submitted that the award is of the year 2016,
the Tribunal has considered the 2nd Schedule of
Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules and has
considered the age of the mother for grant of
compensation, hence, the award passed by the
Tribunal cannot be found fault with.

6. The submission is that the Tribunal has
not granted any amount towards future loss of
income which has to be considered and grant of
future prospects will have to be traced back and
reference can be had to the decision in General
Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum v.
Susamma Thomas & Ors.,(1994) 2 SCC 176
wherein addition of future prospects was also
calculated. The decision in Susamma Thomas
(Supra) was referred in U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. v.
Trilok Chandra & Ors.(1996) 4 SCC 362
which have been considered by the Apex Court
in Sarla Dixit Versus Balwant Yadav AIR
1996 SC 1274 and the Apex Court has
considered decision in Hardeo Kaur V/s.
Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, 1992
2 SCC 567. The decision in Sarla Dixit has
been considered to be good law in (1)
Puttamma Vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy, AIR
2014 SC 706 (2) Raman Vs. Uttar Haryana
Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Bijoy Kumar
Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta, 2006 (3) SCC
242 : (3) Sarla Verma (supra)(4)R.K.Malik
Vs. Kiran Pal, AIR 2009 SC 2506 (5)National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 Raj Rani Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2009
(13) SCC 654. We have gone through the
decisions in those days referred to herein above
and the judgment of Gujarat high court in
Ritaben alias Vanitaben Wd/o. Dipakbhai
Hariram and Anr. v/s.Ahmedabad Municipal
Transport Service & Anr., 1998 (2) G.L.H.
670, wherein, the Court has observed as under:

"para-7: It is settled proposition of
that the main anxiety of the Tribunal in such
case should be to see that the heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased are placed, as
far as possible, in the same financial position, as
they would have been, had there been no
accident. It is therefore, an action based on the
doctrine of compensation.

para-8: It may also be mentioned that
perfect determination of compensation in such
tortuous
liability
is,
hardly,
obtainable.
However, the Tribunal is required to take an
overall view of the facts and the relevant
circumstances
together
with
the
relevant
proposition of law and is obliged to award an
amount of compensation which is just and
reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

para-10: Even in absence of any other
evidence an able bodied young man of 25 years,
otherwise also presumed to earn an amount of
11 All. Smt. Vimla Sharma Vs. Krishna Kumar & Anr.
857
Rs.1000/- or more per month, on that basis the
prospective income could be calculated by
doubling the one prevalent on the date of the
accident, which is required be divided by half, so
as to reach the correct datum figure which is
required
to
be
multiplied
by
appropriate
multiplier. Even taking a conservative view in the
matter, the deceased would be earning not less
than an amount of Rs.1000/- per month and
considering the prospective average income of
Rs.2000/- and divided by half, would, obviously
come to Rs.1500/."

7. Thus even in year of accident, the addition
of future prospects was not ruled out, just because
tribunals in Uttar Pradesh were not granting future
loss, it cannot hold field where the decision of
Apex Court is otherwise. The decision of the Apex
Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Urmila Shukla and others, LL 2021 SC 359
will have to be looked into. Therefore, we will
have to consider the same in the light of the recent
decisions as well as the decisions of the Apex
Court prevailing.

8. Even in the earlier days, the factors to
be
considered
for
issuing
quantum
of
compensation reads as follows:

i. To give present value, a reasonable
deduction or reduction is required as lump
sum amount is given at a stretch under the
head of prospective economic loss;

ii. The tax element is also required to
be considered as observed in the Gourley's
case (1956 AC 185).

iii. The resultant impairment/death
on
the
earning
capacity
of
the
claimant/claimants .

iv. That the amount of interest is
awarded also on the prospective loss of
income.

v. That the amount of compensation
is
not
exemplary
or
punitive
but
is
compensatory.

9. While perusing the judgement, it is very
clear that the Tribunal has not considered the
judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma
(Supra) nor has it considered the earlier
judgments which were focusing on future loss of
income to be paid. We grant 50% addition
towards future loss of income as the deceased
was below the age of 40 years and was in
regular service. As far as multiplier is
concerned, it should be considered on the basis
of the age of the deceased. We are fortified in
our view by the decisions of the Apex Court in
Munna Lal Jain & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar
Sharma & Ors. 2015 (6) SCALE 552 wherein
it has been held that multiplier should be on the
basis of the age of the deceased and also the
decision
in
Sarla
Verma
(Supra)
and,
therefore, we grant multiplier of 17 as the
deceased was in the age bracket of 26-30. As far
as amount under the head of non-pecuniary
damages are concerned, we grant Rs.30,000/- to
the mother towards filial consortium.

10. Hence, the total compensation payable
to the appellant is computed herein below:

i. Income Rs.15,000/- per month

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: 50% namely Rs.7500/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 15,000 + 7500 =
Rs.22,500/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 :
Rs.11,250/-

v. Annual income : Rs.11,250 x 12 =
Rs.1,35,000/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 17

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.1,35,000 x
17 = Rs.22,95,000/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
damages : Rs.30,000/-

xi. Total compensation : 23,25,000/-

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
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. 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.

14. 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 is
not passed because applicants /claimants are
neither illiterate or rustic villagers.

15. 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/-,
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.

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 apply the judgment of A.V.
Padma (supra). The same is to be applied
looking to the facts of each case.

17. Record and proceedings be sent to
the Tribunal. A copy of this order be
circulated to the learned Judge, Sri Ajay
Kumar Tripathi where he is serving so that he
may remain more vigilant in future while
considering the judgment of the Apex Court.
The judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) also
held that where a person is salaried, future loss
of income should be granted. The Uttar
Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules also stipulates
the same.
11 All. Smt. Nirmala Rai & Ors. Vs. M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., New Delhi & Ors.
859
----------
(2021)11ILR A859
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2021 & 28.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1956 of 2002
with
First Appeal From Order No. 1856 of 2002
with
First Appeal From Order No. 1854 of 2002

Smt. Nirmala Rai & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., New Delhi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Arvind Kumar, Sri B.B. Jauhari, Sri
Saurabh Srivastava

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Death Claim -
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 -
Compensation - Death claim - First Appeal No.
1956 of 2002 - deceased aged about 42 years,
having six dependants, income assessed at Rs.
11,950/- per month - Future prospects : 30% of
the income has to be added under the head of
future prospects - deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased : it should be 1⁄4 as
the deceased had six persons to feed - Multiplier
applicable : 14 (as the deceased was in the age
bracket of 41-45 years) - Amount under non
pecuniary heads : Rs.70,000/- + 10% rise every
three years rounded as Rs. 1,00,000 - Total
compensation : Rs. 20,57,368/- (Para 14)

B. Civil Law - Motor Accident Death Claim - Motor
Vehicles Act,1988 - Section 166 - Compensation
- Death claim - First Appeal No. 1856 of 2002 -
deceased aged about 46 years, having four
dependants, income assessed at Rs. 4100 - per
month - Future prospects : deceased aged about
46 years, hence 30% of the income has to be
added under the head of future prospects -
deduction towards personal expenses of the
deceased : it should be 1⁄4 as the deceased had
four persons to feed - contributory negligence -
40% of contributory negligence is to deduct from
the total compensation (Para 14)

Allowed. (E-5)

Cases Relied on :

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

2. General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum v.
Susamma Thomas & ors.,(1994) 2 SCC 176

3. U.P.S.R.T.C. & ors. Vs Trilok Chandra & ors.(1996)
4 SCC 362

4. Sarla Dixit Vs Balwant Yadav AIR 1996 SC 1274

5. Hardeo Kaur Vs Rajasthan State Transport
Corporation, 1992 2 SCC 567

6. Puttamma Vs K.L.Narayana Reddy, AIR 2014 SC
706

7. Raman Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs Bidyadhar Dutta, 2006 (3) SCC
242

8. R.K.Malik Vs Kiran Pal, AIR 2009 SC 2506

9. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi, AIR
2017 SC 5157

10. Raj Rani Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
2009 (13) SCC 654

11. Ritaben @ Vanitaben Wd/o. Dipakbhai Hariram &
anr. v/s.Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service &
anr.,
1998 (2) G.L.H. 670

12. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Urmila Shukla &
ors., LL 2021 SC 359

13. Malarvizhi & ors Vs United India Insurance Co. td.
& anr. 2020 (4) SCC 228