# Union of India & Anr v. Smt. Alka Tyagi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 300
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-18
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1302 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/union-of-india-anr-v-smt-alka-tyagi-ors-48516
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
UP
Motor
Vehicle
Rules,
1998
-
Compensation - Finding of fact, scope of
interference
-
Earlier
High
Court
remanded the matter on the issue of
quantum of compensation and Tribunal
decided
it
-
Contention
raised
by
appellant/Union of India that question of
contributory negligence was not decided
by the Tribunal - Permissibility - Held, the
grounds,
which
are
taken
by
the
appellants except the ground of quantum,
cannot be now agitated after a period of
15 years - High Court deprecated the
practice of Union of India for agitating a
ground which has attained finality under
the guise that the Tribunal has committed
error
in
not
deciding
the
issue
of
negligence
-
High
Court
awarded
litigation fee of Rs. 10,000/- to the
claimant for protracted litigation. (Para 9,
10 and 11).

Appeal dismissed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount
under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source'
as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest
does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any
financial year, registry of this Tribunal is
directed to allow the claimants to withdraw
the
amount
without
producing
the
certificate from the concerned Income- Tax
Authority. The aforesaid view has been
reiterated by this High Court in Review
Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna
and others Vs. Hari Singh and another) and
in First Appeal From Order No.2871 of
2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola
Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.)
decided on 19.3.2021 while disbursing the
amount.

39. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and
Others, vide order dated 27.01.2022, as the
purpose of keeping compensation is to
safeguard the interest of the claimants.
Since long time has elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Bank Account of
claimant(s) in a nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.
----------
(2022)05ILR A300
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1302 of 2021

Union of India & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Alka Tyagi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Satish Kumar Rai, Sri Chandra Prakash
Yadav, Sri Shashi Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Resondents:
Sri Rahul Pandey

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
UP
Motor
Vehicle
Rules,
1998
-
Compensation - Finding of fact, scope of
interference
-
Earlier
High
Court
remanded the matter on the issue of
quantum of compensation and Tribunal
decided
it
-
Contention
raised
by
appellant/Union of India that question of
contributory negligence was not decided
by the Tribunal - Permissibility - Held, the
grounds,
which
are
taken
by
the
appellants except the ground of quantum,
cannot be now agitated after a period of
15 years - High Court deprecated the
practice of Union of India for agitating a
ground which has attained finality under
the guise that the Tribunal has committed
error
in
not
deciding
the
issue
of
negligence
-
High
Court
awarded
litigation fee of Rs. 10,000/- to the
claimant for protracted litigation. (Para 9,
10 and 11).

Appeal dismissed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. UPSRTC Vs Km. Mamta & ors., reported in
AIR 2016 SC 948
2. Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corp. & anr.; 2009 ACJ 1298
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors. 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)
4. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal; 2012 (1) GLH
(SC), 442
5. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Vs U.O.I. & ors. decided by the Apex Court on
27.1.2022
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)
5 All. Union of India & Anr. Vs. Smt. Alka Tyagi & Ors.
301

1. Heard Sri Shashi Prakash Singh,
assisted by Sri Satish Kumar Rai, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul
Pandey,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents-claimants.

2. This appeal challenges the order
dated 12.9.2019 which was passed in
M.A.C.P. No.787 of 2002 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad,
wherein the Tribunal, after the remand by
this Court, has decided the matter on the
issue of quantum of compensation as
directed by this Court in F.A.F.O. No.1087
of 2007 which was preferred by the
claimants (quorum : Hon.Mr.Justice Sudhir
Agrawal
and
Hon.Mr.Justice
Brijesh
Kumar Srivastava-II).

3. The award was for grant of
compensation for the death of the bread
winner of whom the respondents are the
legal heirs. The respondents had challenged
the award passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal dated 12.9.2019. First
Appeal From Order No.1087 of 2007. No
appeal was preferred by the Union of India.
The Union of India had not challenged nor
had filed any cross-objection in the said
appeal. After a period of about 8 years
more particularly on 15.7.2015, the matter
was remitted back to the Tribunal and
paragraph no.11 of the said judgement
reads as follows:-

"11. The appeal is accordingly
partly allowed. The matter is remanded to
the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh on
the question of quantum of compensation
only. The Tribunal shall not be prejudiced
by any of the observations made by us in
the body of the judgment. Since the matter
is old, it shall be decided by Tribunal
expeditiously, keeping its own roster in
mind."

4. The matter came to be remanded
only on the short point as stated above. We
do not find any illegality in quantum fixed
by Tribunal. In this appeal, grounds of
negligence are urged. Counsel for Union of
India has contended that the question of
contributory negligence was not decided by
the Tribunal. The facts of the case rather
there
is
a
categorical
challenge
in
paragraph nos. (vii) and (viii). The question
now arises whether after a period of 14
years when the Union of India sat silent,
can they now be permitted to raise the
following grounds:-

"(vii) Because, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs.
Bidyadhar Dutta and others, reported in
(2006) 3 SCC 242, has laid down the law
that the drivers of both the vehicles should
be held responsible equally in case of head
on collision and as such in the present case
learned Claims Tribunal had erred in
holding the negligence of Bus driver and
fixing
the
entire
liability
upon
the
appellant/defendant CRPF Tata Bus.

(viii) Because, the driver of the
Bus Shri Ratan Kumar Dutta appeared in
the witness box as DW-2 and stated on oath
that the deceased was driving his car and
coming from the opposite direction. At the
time of accident, he was overtaking the
three wheeler and in order to crossing the
three wheeler, he lost his control and
dashed in the offending bus resulting died
on the spot."

5. The Tribunal on remand has very
categorically mentioned that the parties
were heard only for quantum. With this
prelude, this appeal preferred by the Union
of India and Commandant 48 Vahini, 138
Battalion, C.R.P.F. Group Centre, Durgapur
West Bengal (Owner of Vehicle No.HR68/0104) requires to be decided. In
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
UPSRTC Vs. Km. Mamta and others,
reported in AIR 2016 SC 948, the Apex
Court has held that all the grounds raised in
appeal must be decided by the appellate
court but at the outset a question would
arise can after a period of 15 years, a
decided controversy which was already
decided and in which the appellant herein
had not agitated can be agitated for the first
time in challenging the subsequent award.
The grounds of challenge is to the order
dated 12.9.2019 contending that the said is
based on perverse findings of fact and
contrary to law. The next ground is urged in
paragraph no.8 as narrated herein above.
This ground cannot be re-agitated and
cannot be re-decided when the Union of
India had not agitated this ground in the
year 2007. Now raising these grounds for
the first time after 15 years while
challenging the award of 2019 which had to
deal only with compensations cannot be
permitted.

6. The submissions that the Insurance
company of Maruti Car is necessary party
and be impleaded cannot be accepted at this
belated stage. It is submitted that the
Tribunal has shown unplaced sympathy in
calculating
the
compensation.
It
is
submitted that the quantum granted is
highly excessive. It would, therefore, be
necessary to evaluate the quantum granted.

7. It is a decided fact that the
deceased was salaried person. He was
M.Sc. in Organic Chemistry and has done
his Ph.D. He was Director with Dr. Tyagi
Lab Pvt. Ltd. for which he used to get
salary of Rs. 1,80,000/- per annum. The
income-tax
return
have
been
also
considered and it was on the basis of the
income-tax return that his income was
considered by this High Court while
remanding the matter as well as the
Tribunal. The Tribunal considered his
income to be Rs.6,27,121/- per annum and
added only 10% whereas the U.P. Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1998 amended in 2011
obliged to add 20% for future loss of
income. 1/4th has been deducted as
personal expenses looking to the legal heirs
of
deceased.
The
Tribunal
granted
multiplier of 11. Unfortunately, only Rs.
15,000 + Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 40,000/- as nonpecuniary damages as per judgment of Smt.
Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport
Corporation
and
another,
reported in 2009 ACJ 1298. We are,
therefore, unable to accept the submission
of the Counsel for the Union of India that
compensation granted is exorbitant rather
the Tribunal has not decided compensation
as directed by High Court in F.A.F.O.
No.1087 of 2007 decided on 15.7.2015.

8. This takes us to the grounds raised,
the Tribunal has not directed that the
amount earlier deposited be deducted. It
goes without saying that the amount earlier
paid has to be adjusted and for that no
separate order or direction was necessary.
We need not to pass any fresh direction on
the ground that the interest @ 7% is highly
excessive and without jurisdiction. It is not
countenanced by us. The Rule 220 of the
Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules also
mentions that 7% rate of interest has to be
granted and it is just and proper, infact, as
far as issue of rate of interest is concerned,
the interest should be 7.5% in view of the
latest decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat
Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705
(S.C.). The compensation which has been
awarded is on the basis of the facts and
circumstances and observation of this Court
in
appeal
preferred
by
respondents-
claimants and we do not find any reason to
interfere
in
the
same.
5 All. Akhilesh Kumar Anand Vs. Rahul Mishra & Anr.
303

9. The grounds, which are taken by
the appellants except the ground of
quantum, cannot be now agitated after a
period of 15 years. The said grounds were
available to the appellants where the
Tribunal decided the lis between the parties
namely in the year 2007. Up to 15.7.2015,
the appellants herein did not even raise oral
objection to the said award where the
Tribunal had awarded a meagre sum of Rs.
2,76,500/- whereas this Court deprecated
the same by reasoned order on the basis of
the income-tax return. The Tribunal fixed
notional income was a finding of fact and
as narrated above, even in the later part of
this second round of litigation, the Tribunal
has though considered the judgment of
Pranay Sethi (supra). The respondents may
have been now tired as 20 years of elapsed
from the date they lost their bread-winner.
The minors have become major and,
therefore, may be the respondents might
not have filed what is known as crossobjection or oral cross-objection.

10. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
We deprecate the practice of Union of India
agitating a ground which has attained
finality under the guise that the Tribunal
has committed error in not deciding the
issue of negligence. It is stated by the
appellant that the entire amount has been
deposited. We request the registry of the
Tribunal to disburse the said amount in
view of A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal,
Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442. The
record be sent back to the Tribunal.

11. 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 in
F.D.R. is to safeguard the interest of the
claimants. As 20 years have elapsed, the
amount be deposited in the Saving Account
of claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R. We should have dismissed this
appeal with costs as it is an after thought to
challenge the award on grounds which had
attained finality and there is a delay of
considerable time but as claimants have not
filed
cross-objection,
but
we
award
litigation fees of Rs. 10,000/- to the
claimants for this protracted litigation.

12. We are thankful to both the
counsels for getting this matter disposed of.

13. Records be sent back to the
Tribunal.
----------
(2022)05ILR A303
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 2019 of 2021

Akhilesh Kumar Anand ...Appellant
Versus
Rahul Mishra & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Pradip Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Resondents:
Sri Ajay Singh

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Power of Claim Tribunal - Documentary
evidence - Standard of Proof - Deceased
was a teacher - Salary certificate and
salary payment register filed, yet the
Tribunal
has
not
relied
on
this
documentary evidence merely on the