# United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Allahabad v. Smt. Anita & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 768
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-11
- **Case number:** F.A.F.O. No. 1295 of 2019
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-allahabad-v-smt-anita-ors-47394
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Manish Tandon

Deceased was in age bracket of 35-40multiplier of 16 will be applied-income tax
without considering the deduction is badorder remodified.
Partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. As far as disbursement is concerned
the Tribunal before passing orders of fix
deposit or investment follow the guidelines
issued in A.V. Padma Vs. Venugopal,
[2012(1) GLH (SC), 442].

25. We request the Registrar General
to forward this judgment to the concerned
Tribunal (Sri Narendra Singh, HJS.)
whenever he is posted with a request to be
more careful as he has not considered the
judgments of Apex Court.

26. This Court is thankful to both the
learned Advocates for getting this matter
disposed of during this pandemic.

27. Let record of court below be sent
back to the Tribunal concerned.
----------
(2021)09ILR A768
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2021

BEFORE

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

F.A.F.O. No. 1295 of 2019

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Allahabad
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Anita & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manish Tandon

Deceased was in age bracket of 35-40multiplier of 16 will be applied-income tax
without considering the deduction is badorder remodified.
Partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

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

2.Manasvi Jain Vs Delhi Transport Corp. Ltd.&
ors. (2014) 13 SCC 22

3. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan & ors.
(2013) 7 SCC 476

4.Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
InsuranceCo. Ltd., reported in 2007 (2) GLH 291

5.A.Vs Padma Vs Venugopal reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC) 442

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

1 . Heard Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Manish
Tandon,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of
Insurance
Company,
challenges
the
judgment and award dated 07.02.2019
passed
by
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/12th Additional District Judge,
Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.461 of 2017
awarding a sum of Rs.78,83,928/- with
interest at the rate of 7% as compensation.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant that the deceased was in
the age bracket of 35-40, therefore,
multiplier to be applied would be 16. The
fact that the Tribunal has gone by schedule
is bad. The schedule has been found faulty
and Tribunal ought to have relied on
judgment
of
National
Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
9 All United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Allahabad Vs. Smt. Anita & Ors.
769
Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050,
which it has referred but not allowed.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the claimants that the claimants can
raise objection as far as the question of
quantum is concerned, as the appeal is in
continuation of the proceedings. He has
relied on the provisions of Order 41 rule 33
of the Code of Civil Procedure and has
contended that as held by this Court in the
case of National Insurance Comnpany
Limited Vs. Smt. Vidyawati Devi and
others, F.A.F.O. No. 2389 of 2016 the oral
cross objection can be raised and it is
submitted that the calculations made by the
Tribunal are erroneous as the Tribunal has
considered the income to be Rs. 37451/-
added 50% i.e. Rs. 18726/- and deducted
Rs. 9913/-, which was given as personal
expenses, income tax and other amounts,
which could not be done. It is submitted
that the Tribunal has not considered the
grant of compensation in its proper
perspective.

5. Sri Manish Tandon, learned
counsel for the respondents submits that the
entire calculation of compensation requires
recalculation in view of judgment in case of
Manasvi Jain Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation Limited and others (2014)
13 SCC 22 and Vimal Kanwar and others
Vs. Kishore Dan and others (2013) 7
SCC 476 as well as Pranay Sethi (supra),
whereby special allowances could not have
been deducted by the Tribunal. As far as
income tax is concerned, we are obliged to
accept the submissions of Sri Srivastava
that deduction of Rs. 7000/- towards
income tax from the salary of Rs. 37451/-
per month was erroneous and it has to be at
least in the slab of 10% which would mean
that we would deduct 10% per annum. It is
proved that the salary was Rs. 37451/- per
month, hence 37451 x 12 and also add 50%
of the amount for future loss as per rule 220
A and 220A(i) and decision in Pranay Sethi
(supra), we do not disturb the same, but
recalculate the same, as the deceased was
survived by four people, the deduction of
1/4 is not disturbed. The multiplier of 15 as
per judgment of Pranay Sethi is maintained.
The rate of interest is maintained. We have
perused the salary slip of the deceased as
given by Sri Tandon.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
has contended that the Tribunal has
deducted only Rs. 7000/- as tax. It is
submitted that tax would be in the slab of
20% and not Rs. 7000/- per annum. It is
submitted that income has not been
properly calculated. The second ground of
argument is that there was breach of policy
condition as RC book was not valid and,
therefore, the Insurance Company should
be exonerated. The issue of negligence is
not raised by the Insurance Company and it
was not pleaded before the Tribunal.
However, going by the facts it is clear that
the validity of license of the driver is also
not under challenge. The Tribunal has
perused and returned a findings that the RC
book fitness is produced, which was not
found to be fabricated or false, therefore,
the Tribunal decided the issue nos. 2 and 3
against the Insurance Company. We also
concur with the same. The only issue which
requires reconsideration is quantum. The
deceased was 40 years of age. He has left
behind him his widow, two daughters, son
and father. The salary record is also
produced, which shows that his gross salary
was Rs. 37188/- in the month of January
and in the month of February it was Rs.
37451/-.
He
was
working
in
Ircon
International Limited, which is Central
Government
Organization
under
the
Railway Ministry. The deceased has left
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
over a period of 20 years of job. The
Tribunal added 50% for future loss of
income and as there were five members in
his family, deducted 1⁄4 and that is how the
Tribunal came to the figure of Rs.
5,05,596/- per year. The Tribunal deducted
Rs. 16913/- and that is how it calculated
Rs. 4,88,683/- to be the annual income and
multiplied the same by 16 and granted what
is known as Rs. 25000/- for funeral
expenses and Rs. 40,000 as consortium
with 7% interest.

7. As per the submission of Sri Tandon
this amount will have to be recalculated as
the deductions of Rs. 9000/- is bad. We will
have to deduct only Rs. 12000/- per year as
income tax as he was in the slab of more than
five lac, but he would at the same time
entitled what is known as tax deductions.

8. Hence, the judgment and order
passed by the Tribunal would stand remodified and the total compensation payable
to the appellants is computed herein below:

i. Income Rs. 36500/- (Rs.
37451/- per month - Rs. 1000/- income tax)

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40%, namely Rs. 14,600/-

iii. Total income : 36500+14600
= Rs. 51,100/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.
17033/-

v. Annual income : (51,100 -
17033 =34,467) 34,467 x 12 = 4,13,604/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 16

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.4,13,604 x 16 = Rs. 66,17,664/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : Rs. 70,000 + Rs. 30,000 (10% per
year due to pendency of appeal)

ix. Total compensation : Rs.
67,17,664/-

9. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. The oral cross objection of
the Insurance Company is also partly
allowed. Judgment 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 awarded by Tribunal. The
amount already deposited be deducted from
the amount to be deposited.

10. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Smt.
Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs. The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in
2007 (2) GLH 291, the total amount of
interest, accrued on the principle 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 At, 1961
and if the amount of interest does not
exceeds Rs. 50,000/- in any financial year,
registry of the 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 Vs. Chola Mandlam M.S. General
Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.03.2021
while disbursing the amount.

11. On depositing the amount in the
Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to
first deduct the amount of deficit court fees,
9 All National Insurance Co. Ltd, Allahabad Vs. Lalita Devi & Ors.
771
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 respondents are
neither illiterate nor rustic villagers.

12. We are thankful for both the
counsels for getting the appeal decided
without record and ably assisting the
Court.
----------
(2021)09ILR A771
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2021

BEFORE

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

F.A.F.O. No. 2938 of 2010

National Insurance Co. Ltd, Allahabad
 ...Appellant
Versus
Lalita Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Amit Manohar, Sri Krishna Mohan Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satya Deo Ojha, Sri Sanjay Kumar
Shukla

Motor accident claim-deceased was in age
bracket of 31-35-25 - income to be
calculated as per judgment held in Pranay
Sethi-amount under non-pecuniary heads
is
enhanced-amount
of
compensation
requires
to
be
recalculated-amount
enhanced.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. The Managing Director, T.N.S.T.C. Vs Sripriya
& ors. 2007 (3) T.A.C. 27

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

3. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corp., (2009)
6 SCC 121

4. A.Vs Padma Vs Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442

5. Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291

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

1. Heard Sri Amit Manohar, learned
counsel for the appellants, Sri S.D.Ojha,
learned counsels for the respondent and
perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and award dated
21.4.2010 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
Court No.4, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred
to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No.52 of 2006
awarding a sum of Rs.6,21,500/- with
interest at the rate of 5% as compensation.

3. On the last occasion, we have
requested Sri Amit Manohar, learned
counsel for appellant to keep the officer
present as we are of the opinion that
judgment of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi
and Others Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and
others, 2015(1)T.A.C.637 (S.C.) and the
judgment in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Smt. Vidyawati Devi and 2
others decided on 27.7.2016 wherein one of
us (Hon'ble Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)
was a member of the Bench, may apply to
the facts of this case as the Tribunal had