# Umesh Pal & Anr v. Uttam Ghosh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 980
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-21
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1270 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/umesh-pal-anr-v-uttam-ghosh-ors-48956
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section -166 - Appeal - compensation -
Contributory negligence - burden of proof
for contributory negligence has to be
discharged by opponents - it is duty of
driver to explain the accident - it is
admitted position that neither driver nor
the owner of truck have stepped into the
witness box - while going through the
testimony of witnesses, it is clear that
motorcyclist was not negligent - Truck
came behind and dashed with motorcycle
of deceased causing grievous injuries and
death - truck being bigger vehicle, the
driver of truck has to be more cautious -
Principle of Res ipsa loquitur - issue of
negligence
is
decided
against
the
insurance company - hence, insurance
company cannot avoid its liability.
(Para 18, 22, 24, 26)

(B) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 166 - U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - Rules 220 - Compensation -
Quantum - in view of law laid down in
Sarla Verm's case Multiplier of 18 is
correctly applied because the age of
deceased was 23 years, - and 40% of
income ought to be added towards future
loss of income is appropriate since he was
not
a
permanent
employee
of
the
company - Compensation computed and
awarded
accordingly
-
appeal
partly
allowed and further directions as per the
settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court towards mode of disbursement,
payment of interest, deduction of income
tax etc. issued accordingly.(Para 31, 32, 35,
37, 38, 39, 41)

Appeals are partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under section 302, 201 and 376 of the
Indian penal Code by the police.

d) On 10.08.1994 police visited
the village and at the instance of the
Appellant the body of the deceased,
clothes, bangles were recovered from
almirah in the house of the Appellant. The
recovery memo was prepared by the
investigating officer and the same was
marked as Ex Ka-1 before the trial court.

e) On 10.08.1994 at the instance
of Badri Prasad (father of Appellant) the
bucket of the deceased was recovered from
the house of the Appellant. The Recovery
Memo was Prepared by the Investigating
Officer and the same was marked as
Exhibit Ka-2.

f) The panchayatnama of the
deceased was conducted on 10.08.1994 in
the presence of P.W.3- D.R. NaNoria. As
per the panchayatnama the deceased died
on account of injuries on the body of the
deceased. The panchayatnama was marked
as Ex. Ka-5 before the trial court.

g) The post-mortem of the
deceased was held on 10.08.1994 by Dr.
SK Sharma (P.W.5). As per the PostMortem
Report
lacerated
wound,
Contusion, abrasion were found on the
body of the deceased. Posterior Fourchette
lacerated, post vaginal wall also lacerated,
freshly ruptured hymen. As per the postmortem report the deceased died due to
Asphyxia as a result of strangulation. The
said witness has proved the post-mortem
report.

h) The prosecution witnesses
have proved the prosecution case beyond
reasonable doubt and the Appellant has
not been able to dislodge the prosecution
case in cross examination.

i) The statement of the Appellant
under
section
313
of
the
criminal
procedure code was recorded before the
trial court. Appellant has not been able to
explain the circumstance with regard to
the recovery of the dead body of the
victim (in naked condition) from the house
of the Appellant.

105. The Appellant has failed to
dislodge the prosecution case and no
circumstance has been stated which would
entitle the finding of conviction and
sentence recorded by the trial court as perse perverse. We are in agreement with the
conviction and sentence recorded by the
trial court in the impugned judgment.

106. In view of the aforesaid, the
present
appeal
lacks
merit
and
is,
accordingly, dismissed.

107. Office is directed to return the
record of the lower court forthwith along
with a copy of this order.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 980
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1270 of 2020
And
First Appeal From Order No. 1377 of 2020

Umesh Pal & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Uttam Ghosh & Ors. ...Respondents
8 All. Umesh Pal & Anr. Vs. Uttam Ghosh & Ors.
981
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Nigamendra Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K. Mehrotra

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section -166 - Appeal - compensation -
Contributory negligence - burden of proof
for contributory negligence has to be
discharged by opponents - it is duty of
driver to explain the accident - it is
admitted position that neither driver nor
the owner of truck have stepped into the
witness box - while going through the
testimony of witnesses, it is clear that
motorcyclist was not negligent - Truck
came behind and dashed with motorcycle
of deceased causing grievous injuries and
death - truck being bigger vehicle, the
driver of truck has to be more cautious -
Principle of Res ipsa loquitur - issue of
negligence
is
decided
against
the
insurance company - hence, insurance
company cannot avoid its liability.
(Para 18, 22, 24, 26)

(B) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 166 - U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - Rules 220 - Compensation -
Quantum - in view of law laid down in
Sarla Verm's case Multiplier of 18 is
correctly applied because the age of
deceased was 23 years, - and 40% of
income ought to be added towards future
loss of income is appropriate since he was
not
a
permanent
employee
of
the
company - Compensation computed and
awarded
accordingly
-
appeal
partly
allowed and further directions as per the
settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court towards mode of disbursement,
payment of interest, deduction of income
tax etc. issued accordingly.(Para 31, 32, 35,
37, 38, 39, 41)

Appeals are partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. UPSRTC Vs Km. Mamta & ors., AIR 2016 SC
948,
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 vol. 0 Supreme (SC) 1050,

3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Poonam
Kesarwani & ors., 2008 Law Suit (All) 1557,

4. Mukund Dewangan Vs Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663,

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

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

7. A. V. Padma Vs Venugopal (2012 (3) SCC
378),

8. General Manager, KSRTC, Trivandrum Vs
Susamma Thomas & ors. (AIR, 1994 SC 1631),

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

10. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
U.O.I. & ors. (Decided on Dt. 27.01.2022).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

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

2. First Appeal From Order No.1270
of
2022
has
been
preferred
by
appellants/claimants against the judgment
and award dated 18.01.2020 passed by
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as,
'Tribunal')
in
Motor Accident
Claim
Petition No.459 of 2016 (Umesh Pal and
another v. Uttam Ghosh and others)
whereby the claimants were awarded
compensation Rs.1,37,12,904/- with 7% p

3. Claimants have preferred the
aforesaid appeal for enhancement of
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount of compensation. The National
Insurance Company insurer of truck
(vehicle) involved in the accident has also
preferred Appeal No.1377 of 2020 against
the aforesaid award challenging the same
and for setting aside the award in
question/modification qua compensation,
negligence and liability of Insurance
Company are concerned.

4. The brief facts as culled out from
the record are that a claim petition was
filed
by
claimants,
who
are
legal
representatives of deceased. The averments
in the petition are that on 3.8.2016 the
deceased Gaurav Kumar was driving
Motorcycle No.WB 20 N 1364. When the
deceased was going to his room with his
friend Virendra Kumar at about 4.30 p.m.
and when the deceased reached the gate of
M.I.M.T. Colony on Taratola Road, a
tanker No.WB 19 E 8494 came from
behind which was being driven rashly and
negligently by its driver and hit the
motorcycle of deceased from behind. In
this accident, deceased sustained grievous
injuries due to which he died on the spot.
Deceased Gaurav Kumar was serving in
Merchant Navy as a Cadet.

5. On summons being issued,
Respondent No.3, Insurance Company Ltd
filed its written statement, but no written
statement was filed by driver or owner of
the aforesaid Tank involved in the accident.

6. The Apex Court in UPSRTC Vs.
Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR
2016 SC 948, has held that all the issues
raised in the memo of appeal are required
to be addressed and decided by the first
appellate court.

7. The accident having occurred is
now not in dispute, involvement of truck
though initially disputed by Insurance
Company, qua involvement but finding of
tribunal about involvement is not in dispute
in challenge by either side while going
through the grounds of challenge of the
insurance
Company,
the
insurance
company
has
contended
that
non
consideration of contributory negligence of
the deceased in light of the facts and
circumstances and holding the driver of the
truck to be solely liable is bad in eye of
law.

8. The issue of negligence decided by
the Tribunal is in dispute. The Insurance
Company has challenged the liability
imposed on them. It is submitted by
counsel for Insurance company, the finding
that the driving licence of the driver of
tanker was valid and effective is bad and on
this ground the impugned award is
erroneous and liable to be set aside qua the
Insurance Company.

9. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for Insurance company that the
driving licence of the deceased was not
valid and effective on the date of accident
i.e. on 03.08.2016 as it was valid to drive
transport vehicle w.e.f. 26.08.2019 to
25.08.2024
and
that
there
was
no
endorsement for hazardous goods whereas
Tanker in question was heavy goods
vehicle capable of carrying of hazardous
goods but the Tribunal illegally held that
the driving licence of Tanker driver was
valid and effective hence on this ground
also impugned award is erroneous and
liable to be set aside.

10. It is an admitted position of fact
that deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the legal representatives of
the deceased, namely, the parents of the
deceased, the multiplier would be as per the
8 All. Umesh Pal & Anr. Vs. Uttam Ghosh & Ors.
983
judgment of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,
2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050, which would
have to be granted as per the age of the
deceased and not as per the age of the
parents as submitted by learned counsel for
the Insurance company.

11. With these background, the
submissions
of
counsels
are
to
be
discussed.

Arguments qua Compensation
in both Appeals:

12. Learned counsel for claimants
submitted that at the time of accident,
deceased was serving in Merchant Navy,
with a private Marine Company in Ireland.
It is also submitted that learned tribunal has
assessed monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.90,000/- p.m. which is on lower-side
because
the
company
had
deposited
Rs.12,00,000/- in six months in the bank
account of deceased. The monthly income
of the deceased was Rs.2,00,000/- when
converted to Indian currency. It is next
submitted that in the service of Merchant
Navy, income tax has not to be deducted
from the salary of the employee. Learned
counsel submitted that in the present case,
deceased used to reside in Ireland for nine
months and tax was deducted from his
income by the Government of Ireland, it is
submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in
deducting income tax from the income of
deceased. Learned counsel also submitted
that deceased was receiving salary from the
company in Euro Currency and at the time
of his death, the exchange rate of Euro was
Rs.71.20 per Euro. Learned counsel for
claimants also submitted that for the future
loss of income, 50% of the income should
have been added by the learned tribunal,
but tribunal has committed error by adding
40% of the income only, it is further
submitted that the amount under non
pecuniary damages is on lower side. It is
further submitted that rate of interest on
lower side than repo rate.

13. Learned counsel for Insurance
company vehemently objected to the
submissions advanced by counsel for
claimants as far as compensation is
concerned and submitted that deceased was
not the employee of the company, but he
was working with the company on
contractual
basis
and
there
was
employment contract between company
and deceased in which it was clearly stated
that salary would be 800 US Dollars per
month. Learned counsel submitted that the
tribunal could not go beyond the aforesaid
contract and further submitted that at the
time of death of the deceased, the exchange
rate of US Dollar was Rs.70 per dollar.
Hence, the salary of the deceased comes at
Rs.56,000/- per month and the calculation
of salary at Rs.90,000/- per month is on
higher side.

14. Learned counsel for claimants
submitted that it is on record that from 19th
August, 2015 till 20th December, 2015, the
deceased earned 18670.67 Euro, certificate
of which is on record. It is also submitted
by learned counsel that statement of bank
account of the deceased is also on record
which could prove the income of the
deceased which has been overlooked by the
tribunal.

15. Learned counsel for insurance
company submitted that deceased was not a
permanent
employee
of
the
Marine
Company. Hence, the learned Tribunal was
justified by adding only 40% of the income
towards future loss of income to the salary
of deceased.
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Findings on all issues:

Negligence:

16. As the issue of negligence is
raised by Insurance company the same
would have to be decided as to who was
negligent, whether the deceased had
contributed in the accident having taken
place what we have to be evaluated to the
fact and circumstances of the case. The
issue of negligence will have to be decided
in light of the facts and circumstances of
this case.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 10th Schedule appended to Motor
Vehicle Act contain statutory regulations
for driving of motor vehicles which also
form part of every Driving License. Clause6 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.

20. 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
8 All. Umesh Pal & Anr. Vs. Uttam Ghosh & Ors.
985
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.

21. These provisions (sec.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.

22. 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).

23. 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.

24. While going through the facts, it
is an admitted position of fact that neither
the driver nor the owner of the truck have
stepped into the witness box. The driver of
the vehicle (truck) is the best witness to
contradict and prove the negligence. While
going through the testimony of the
witnesses, it is clear that motorcyclist was
not negligent. The fact that the motorcyclist
was going ahead of the truck, the truck
which is a bigger vehicle which was
following the motorcycle the driver of the
truck should have taken proper care, if care
was taken, the injuries would not have been
suffered by the deceased. The deceased
died on the spot and there was injuries on
temporal region also. This shows that
driver of the truck drove the truck rashly
and negligently and dashed motorcyclist on
the rear-side. Therefore, the submission of
counsel for the insurance company that the
deceased had also contributed to the
accident having taken place cannot be
accepted. Hence, the issue of negligence is
decided against the insurance company and
we concur with the learned Tribunal as far
as issue No.2 is concerned.

25. This takes us to the issue of
avoidance and breach of terms of insurance
as far as the licence of the truck driver is
concerned, the judgment of the Apex Court
in Mukund Dewangan (infra) would enure
for the benefit of the claimants, the permit
was also there, the driver had driving
licence which cannot be said to be not of
the vehicle which he was driving. It has not
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been proved whether the truck was carrying
hazardous chemicals or not. All the
documents were valid, the finding of fact
which has not be proved to be perverse or
bad in eye of law. The tribunal which has to
take a holistic view of the matter in coming
to the conclusion that the driver was having
proper effective driving licence has done
so.

26. We are fortified in our view in
the light of the judgment of this Court in
Oriental Insurance Company Limited
v. Poonam Kesarwani and others, 2008
LawSuit (All) 1557, when it was not
proved by the Insurance Company that
there was breach of policy condition,
there being no breach of policy of
insurance, the judgment of Apex Court in
Mukund
Dewangan
Vs.
Oriental
Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14
SCC 663, though referred to the larger
Bench will apply to the facts and
circumstances of the case. Hence, this
ground so to avoid its liability by
insurance company cannot be accepted.
Insurance company cannot avoid its
liability. We concur with the tribunal as
far as breach of policy conditions are
concerned, there is no breach of policy
condition.

Compensation :

27. The learned tribunal has assessed
monthly income of the deceased at about
Rs.90,000/- per month on the following
basis. While learned counsel for Insurance
Company has referred the employment
contract between the company and the
deceased which shows that salary of the
employee would be 800 US Dollars per
month. It is submitted by learned counsel
for claimants that the deceased was paid
amount in Euro currency.

28. Controversy about the salary/pay
package of the deceased, this Court have
re-evaluated. The reports of copies of bank
account statement of the deceased just prior
to the accident.

29. It is admitted fact that death of the
deceased took place in the month of August
2016 on account of the accident, hence the
income of the deceased preceding one year
of the death would be relevant.

30. While going through the bank
account statements of the deceased, for the
one year preceding to the death of the
deceased, total Rs.8,45,225/- were credited
into the bank account of the deceased by
the company, hence, average monthly
income of the deceased comes out
Rs.70,435/-. It is pertinent to mention that
this amount of Rs.8,45,225/- was credited
in bank account between the month of
September 2015 and December, 2015 and
no amount was credited by the company
from the month of January, 2016 till the
death of the deceased. Hence, the average
income of the deceased is assessed
Rs.70,435/- per month. In this way, the
total computable annual income of the
deceased has to be taken at Rs.8,45,225/-
(concerted).

31. We are in agreement with the
learned tribunal for adding 40% of the
income towards future loss of income
because
the
deceased
was
not
a
permanent employee of the company, but
he was working with the Company on
contractual basis, 1/2 is deducted by the
tribunal for personal expenses of the
deceased as he was bachelor and for some
period of year would not be with parents
which is in consonance with the judgment
of Apex Court titled Sarla Verma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
8 All. Umesh Pal & Anr. Vs. Uttam Ghosh & Ors.
987
SCC 121 multiplier of 18 is also
correctly applied in view of the aforesaid
judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) because
the age of the deceased was 23 years, non
pecuniary damages also need not to be
interfered by us as there is no dispute
with
regard
to
the
non
pecuniary
damages.

32. On the basis of the above
discussions, the quantum of compensation
is re-computed herein below:

i. Annual Income Rs.8,45,225/-
p.m.

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.3,38,090/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 8,45,225 +
Rs. 3,38,090= Rs.11,83,315/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/2:
Rs.5,91,657/-

v. Multiplier applicable : 18

vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.
5,91,657 x 18 = Rs.1,06,49,826/-

vii Loss of estate : Rs.15000/-

viii
Funeral
expenses
:
Rs.15,000/-

ix. Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000
each): Rs.80,000/- (as per decision of the
Apex Court)

x. Expenses for bringing the
dead body : 20,000/-

xi.
Total
compensation
(vi+vii+viii+ix+x): Rs.1,07,79,826/-

33. We maintain transportation
charges awarded by the tribunal, the reason
being,
dead
body
of
the
deceased
transported from distant place.

34. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the
latest decision of the Apex Court in
National 7 Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2)
T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court
has held as under :

"13.
The
aforesaid
features
equally apply to the contentions urged on
behalf of the claimants as regards the rate
of interest. The Tribunal had awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same
had been too high a rate in comparison to
what is ordinarily envisaged in these
matters. The High Court, after making a
substantial enhancement in the award
amount, modified the interest component at
a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that allowed
by High Court."

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

36. On depositing the amount in the
Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to
first deduct the amount of deficit court fees,
if any. Considering the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V.
Padma (supra), the order of investment is
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not passed because claimants are neither
illiterate nor rustic villagers.

37. Recently the Gujarat High Court
in case titled the Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
(TDS),
R/Special
Civil
Application
No.4800 of 2021 decided on 05.04.2022, it
is held that interest awarded by the tribunal
or appellate court under Section 171 of
Motor Vehicles Act is not taxable under the
Income Tax Act, 1961

38.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein. The Tribunal 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.

39. In view of the above, both the
appeals are partly allowed. Judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal shall stand
modified to the aforesaid extent. The
respondent-Insurance
Company
shall
deposit the amount of s.1,07,79,826/-
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.

40. Record be transmitted to tribunal.

41. 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 8
years have elapsed since occurrence of
accident, the amount be deposited in the
Saving
Account
of
claimants
in
Nationalized Bank. The amount shall be
credited in the said account with without
investment as the case may be.

42. The First Appeal From Order
No.1377 of 2020 of National Insurance
Company Ltd. is partly allowed and the
First Appeal From Order No.1270 of 2020
of claimants is decided, accordingly.

43. We are thankful to learned counsel
for the parties for ably assisting this court
in getting this old appeal disposed of.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 988
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1699 of 2013
connected with
Cross Objection No. 48 of 2021

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Mamta Rani & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anubhav Sinha, Sri V.C. Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, Sri Dharmendra Kr.
Gupta

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166 - U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - Rules 220, 220-A(3), 220-A(3) (iii)
& 220-A(6): - Insurers' Appeal - against award
- Cross objection - seeking enhancement of
compensation by Claimant's - denial of accident