# Sri Hoti Lal & Ors v. Lakhpat Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1510
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-21
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 719 of 1997
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-hoti-lal-ors-v-lakhpat-singh-ors-50130
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Subhash Chandra Srivastava, Sri S.K.
Mehrotra
Motor accident claim - Accident occurred
on 14.05.1985. Deceased was a 25-year-
5 All. Sri Hoti Lal & Ors. Vs. Lakhpat Singh & Ors.
1511
old labourer (rajmistri) earning Rs. 1050/-
per month. He was survived by his father,
widow, and two minor children - a son
and a daughter. Held: The father, brother,
and
sister
cannot
be
granted
nonpecuniary damages when the wife, falling
under Class-1 heirs, is the recipient of the
benefits. Income of the deceased was
considered to be Rs. 750/- per month. As
the deceased was 35 years old, 40% was
added towards future loss of income,
1/3rd
was
deducted
for
personal
expenses, and a multiplier of 18 was
applied
considering
the
age
of
the
deceased. Additionally, Rs. 50,000/- was
granted
for
non-pecuniary
damages.
Insurance company was held liable to pay
interest from the date of filing of the claim
petition, irrespective of when it was
joined as a party respondent. Interest was
awarded at 7% per annum from the filing
of the claim petition until the judgment of
the tribunal, and thereafter at 6% per
annum on the awarded amount. (Para 9,
10)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
constitute a separate cause of action, but
under no circumstances, it can be taken as a
ground for not vacating the premises. He
further submits that proceedings in relation
to payment of alleged dues are pending in a
different forum.

20. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, this Court is of the opinion that
insofar as prayer made in the application is
concerned, the relief can be granted or
denied irrespective of final adjudication of
the controversy. This Court, either sitting
in jurisdiction under Article 226 or
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, cannot ignore the fact that
respondents
are
occupying
official
accommodations, which they claim to be
associated with their services, and
therefore, admittedly, those respondents
who
have
attained
the
age
of
superannuation, cannot be allowed to
remain
in
occupation
in
the
accommodations, irrespective of the
nature of their services or even on the
ground that certain sums allegedly
payable to them remain unpaid to them.

21. The High Court, in whatever
jurisdiction it sits, always functions on
the basic principles of equity, fairness
and reasonableness, and therefore, the
stand of the petitioner- Bharat Heavy
Electricals Limited to the effect that
scarcity of official accommodations is
causing
grave
problems
for
the
establishment as well as their regular
employees on account of non vacation
of
the
premises
by
the
retired
respondents, needs consideration and
cannot be ignored merely on the
ground that the writ petition finally
has to be heard either under Article
226 or under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.

22. In view of the above discussion, the
application is allowed. The respondents who
have attained age of superannuation, i.e. 60
years, shall vacate the premises under their
occupation on or before 15.07.2023. In case,
such respondents fail to vacate the premises
under their occupation and hand over peaceful
and vacant possession to the petitioner, it shall
be open for the petitioner to seek assistance
from the police and District Administration to
use necessary force for their eviction.

23. This order shall not come in the
way of respondents to claim appropriate
reliefs before any other forum in relation to
their grievance for non payment of any
sum, which aspect is beyond the scope of
present writ petition.

24. The application is, accordingly,
allowed in above terms.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1510
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 719 of 1997

Sri Hoti Lal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Lakhpat Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Madhav Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Subhash Chandra Srivastava, Sri S.K.
Mehrotra
Motor accident claim - Accident occurred
on 14.05.1985. Deceased was a 25-year-
5 All. Sri Hoti Lal & Ors. Vs. Lakhpat Singh & Ors.
1511
old labourer (rajmistri) earning Rs. 1050/-
per month. He was survived by his father,
widow, and two minor children - a son
and a daughter. Held: The father, brother,
and
sister
cannot
be
granted
nonpecuniary damages when the wife, falling
under Class-1 heirs, is the recipient of the
benefits. Income of the deceased was
considered to be Rs. 750/- per month. As
the deceased was 35 years old, 40% was
added towards future loss of income,
1/3rd
was
deducted
for
personal
expenses, and a multiplier of 18 was
applied
considering
the
age
of
the
deceased. Additionally, Rs. 50,000/- was
granted
for
non-pecuniary
damages.
Insurance company was held liable to pay
interest from the date of filing of the claim
petition, irrespective of when it was
joined as a party respondent. Interest was
awarded at 7% per annum from the filing
of the claim petition until the judgment of
the tribunal, and thereafter at 6% per
annum on the awarded amount. (Para 9,
10)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gobald Motor Services Ltd. & anr.Vs R.M.K.
Velusamy, 1962 SCR (1) 929

2. V. Padma Vs Venugopal, reported in 2012 (1)
GLH (SC), 442

3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Comp. Pvt.
Ltd. Vs U.O.I. & ors., vide order dated
27.1.2022

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

1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Subhash
Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
order
dated
29.04.1997
passed
by
M.A.C.T/XVth-Additional District Judge,
Agra (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal")
in M.A.C.P. No. 185 of 1987 awarding a
sum of Rs. 98,000/- as compensation with
interest at therate of 10%.

3. The deceased is survived by his
father, wife, son and daughter. Deceased
being 25 years of age is not in dispute. He
was a labourer doing labour work is not in
dispute. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal
is not in dispute. The respondent-Insurance
Company has not challenged the liability
imposed on them. The only issue to be
decided is, the quantum of compensation
awarded.

4. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that on 14.05.1985 at about 6:30
hrs, deceased Mohar Singh was going Agra
from his by-cycle and when he reached
near village Digner a bus bearing no.
U.S.Y-9555 driven by its driver rashly and
negligently dashed into the by-cycle of the
Mohar Singh and as a result of which
Mohar Singh died on the spot.

5.
The
accident
occurred
on
14.05.1985. The deceased was 25 year old
labour (rajmistri) and was earning Rs.
1050/- p.m. He was survived by his father,
widow and two minor children a son and a
daughter. The tribunal has considered his
income to be Rs.750/-, granted multiplier
of 16 and Rs. 2000/- to his widow under
non pecuniary damages and ultimately
assessed the total compensation to be Rs.
98,000/-
with
10%
interest
from
22.02.1993 till payment was made.

6. It is contended by Sri Madhav Jain,
learned counsel for the appellant that
income should be considered at Rs. 1000/-
plus 40% to be added under future loss of
1512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
income even under the old act under the
judgment of Gobald Motor Services Ltd.
and another v. R.M.K. Velusamy, 1962
SCR (1) 929 the should be added for future
loss of income and /3rd may to be deducted
for personal expenses and the multiplier of
18 would be admissible, Rs. 70,000/- may
be given under non pecuniary damages.

7. As against this, Sri Subhash
Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company vehemently submits
that in absence of any evidence on record
the income considered by the tribunal is
just and proper, however, he could not
point that addition of future loss of income
which has not been given is just and proper,
multiplier granted is just and proper.

8. While considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court
accepts the the submission of Sri Subhash
Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company that father, brother and
sister cannot be granted non pecuniary
damages when the wife is falling under
class-1 and is the recipient of the benefits.
This Court feels that income of the
deceased can be considered to be Rs. 750/-
p.m to which as he was 35 years of age and
as to the thumb rule and in view of the
decisions in Gobald Motor Services
(supra) and Susamma Thomas (supra)
40% should be added towards future loss of
income, 1/3rd will have to be deducted and
multiplier of 18 looking to the age of the
deceased will have to be granted and Rs.
50,000/-for non pecuniary damages will
have to be granted.

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

i. Income: Rs. 750/- per month

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.300/-

iii. Total income : Rs.750 + 300=
Rs.1050/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.700/-

v. Annual loss: Rs. 700 x 12 = Rs.
8400

vi. Multiplier applicable : 18

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.84,00
x 18 = Rs.1,51,200/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : Rs. 50,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.2,01,200/-

10. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, the tribunal has considered the
grant of interest only after the insurance
company was impleaded as a party
respondent.
The
liability
to
pay
compensation arises when the claim
petition is filed. The question of interest
even under the old act would be to pay
compensation from the date claim petition
is filed. The said decision of the tribunal
requires reconsiderartion and the principles
for grant of interest will have to be look
into. The accident took place in the year
1987, the insurance company would be
liable to pay interest not from 1993 but
from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Hence, the interest is to be from the date
claim petition is filed irrespective of the
joining of the insurance company as a party
respondent. This takes this Court to the
percentage of interest granted by the
tribunal and objected by the insurance
company. Thus rate of interest could not
have been 10% in the year 1987, even the
rapo rates in the year of accident and when
the matter was decided in the year 1997
were not more than 9% is the submission of
the learned counsel for the insurance
company who has orally objected for
5 All. Smt. Meena & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1513
slashing the interest as the matter has
remain pending before this Court also for
no fault of the insurance company.. The
oral objection under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C
of Sri Subhash Chandra Srivastava is
accepted. The interest is to be paid from the
date of filing of claim petition which is the
law and it cannot be from the date the
insurance
company
was
impleaded,
however, due to passage of long time the
said order is disturbed for awarded amount
the interest at 7% from filing of the claim
petition till the judgment of tribunal and
thereafter it would be at 6% on the awarded
amount.

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

12. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Total compensation of Rs.
2,01,200/- is allowed with interest at 7% from
the date of filing of the claim petition till
judgment and award of the tribunal and 6%
thereafter till amount is deposited. Award and
decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand
modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount
be deposited by the respondent-Insurance
Company within a period of 12 weeks from
today with interest as directed above. The
amount already deposited be deducted from
the amount to be deposited.

13. 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 Vs. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of investment
is not passed because applicants /claimants
are neither illiterate or rustic villagers.

14. 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.

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
long period has elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.

16. Record be sent back to tribunal
forthwith.

17. This Court is thankful to both the
learned Advocates for ably assisting this
Court.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1513
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 944 of 2018

Smt. Meena & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Sri Ajay Kr.
Srivastava