# Yogendra Nath Upadhyaya & Anr v. Sailesh Kr. Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1388
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-02
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1054 of 1995
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogendra-nath-upadhyaya-anr-v-sailesh-kr-singh-ors-50186
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act- Sections
166 & 140-Accident due to joint negligence of
jeep and tractor drivers-deceased was 60 yearswas agriculturist -earning Rs. 2000/- p.m.-
tribunal considered the income to be Nil-Tribunal
held claimant entitled to amount on only no
fault liability basis-wrong-amount u/s 140 is
under no fault liability and is independent of
sec.166-case of composite negligence-deceased
was not tort feasor -both drivers negligentamount be apportioned between the two tort
5 All. Yogendra Nath Upadhyaya & Anr. Vs. Sailesh Kr. Singh & Ors.
1389
feasors -income considered Rs. 15,000/- per
annum-head
of
non-pecuniary
damagesmultiplier of 5-no addition in future prospects.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
/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. Hansaguri 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 judgment of A.V. Padma
(supra). The same is to be applied looking
to the facts of each case.

17. 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.

18. Record be sent back to tribunal
forthwith.

19. This Court is thankful to both the
learned Advocates for ably assisting this
Court.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1388
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2023
BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1054 of 1995

Yogendra Nath Upadhyaya & Anr.
 ...Applicants
Versus
Sailesh Kr. Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri A.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Kameshwar Singh,Sri Amaresh Sinha,
Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act- Sections
166 & 140-Accident due to joint negligence of
jeep and tractor drivers-deceased was 60 yearswas agriculturist -earning Rs. 2000/- p.m.-
tribunal considered the income to be Nil-Tribunal
held claimant entitled to amount on only no
fault liability basis-wrong-amount u/s 140 is
under no fault liability and is independent of
sec.166-case of composite negligence-deceased
was not tort feasor -both drivers negligentamount be apportioned between the two tort
5 All. Yogendra Nath Upadhyaya & Anr. Vs. Sailesh Kr. Singh & Ors.
1389
feasors -income considered Rs. 15,000/- per
annum-head
of
non-pecuniary
damagesmultiplier of 5-no addition in future prospects.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105

2. First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 (
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.
Renu Singh & ors.)

3. Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &
ors., 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469

4. Deepal Girishbhai Soni & ors. Vs United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 385

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

6. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 29

7. Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First
Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt.
Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.)

8. 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

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

1. Heard Sri A.K.Pandey, learned
counsel for the appellants, Sri Sushil
Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for
respondent no. 2/New India Insurance Co.
Ltd., and Sri Amresh Sinha, learned
counsel for the respondentNo.4/United
India Insurance Company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
order dated 21.8.1995 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/5th-Additional
District Judge, Ballia (hereinafter referred
to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 2 of 1991.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that on 14.10.1990 at about 3:00
p.m deceased Thakurji Upadhaya was
returning from Ballia to his house in a jeep
bearing no. B.H.N. 793, when the jeep
reached near Hanuman Chatti at Ballia
Sikandarpur marg, a Tractor bearing
No.U.R.I. 732 hit the jeep from front.
Accident occurred due to joint negligence
of jeep and tractor drivers and as a result of
which Thakurji Upadhaya died on the spot.

4. The deceased was 60 years of age
at the time of accident. He was an
agriculturist and was earning Rs.2,000/-
p.m. He was survived by his two sons. The
Tribunal has considered his income to be
Nil, granted Rs.50,000/- as the total
compensation. The Tribunal held both the
drivers namely driver of the jeep in which
the deceased was travelling and the driver
of the tractor 50:50% negligent.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the deceased was an
agriculturist and was earning Rs. 2000/-
p.m, but the Tribunal has considered his
income to be Nil and it should be
considered to be Rs.15,000/- per annum. It
is further submitted that the Tribunal
neither granted any amount for future loss
of income of the deceased nor any amount
is awarded under non-pecuniary heads
which should be as per the decision of the
Apex
Court
in
National
Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105.

6. It is submitted by both the counsels
for respondent nos.2 and 4 that the
quantum of compensation and the interest
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper
1390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and does not call for any interference by
this Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, let us consider the
negligence from the perspective of the law
laid down.

8. The term negligence means failure
to exercise care towards others which a
reasonable and prudent person would in a
circumstance or taking action which such a
reasonable person would not. Negligence
can be both intentional or accidental which
is normally accidental. More particularly, it
connotes reckless driving and the injured
must always prove that the either side is
negligent. If the injury rather death is
caused by something owned or controlled
by the negligent party then he is directly
liable otherwise the principle of "res ipsa
loquitur" meaning thereby "the things
speak for itself" would apply.

9. The principle of contributory
negligence has been discussed time and
again. A person who either contributes or
author of the accident would be liable for
his contribution to the accident having
taken place.

10. The Division Bench of this Court
in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of
2012 ( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And
Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as
under :

"16. 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.

17. 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.
18. 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
5 All. Yogendra Nath Upadhyaya & Anr. Vs. Sailesh Kr. Singh & Ors.
1391
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.

19. 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 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.

20. 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.

21. 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).

22. 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."

emphasis added

11. The Apex Court in Khenyei Vs.
New India Assurance Company Limited &
Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469 has held as
under:

"4. It is a case of composite
negligence where injuries have been caused
to the claimants by combined wrongful act
of joint tort feasors. In a case of accident
caused by negligence of joint tort feasors,
all the persons who aid or counsel or direct
or join in committal of a wrongful act, are
liable. In such case, the liability is always
1392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
joint and several. The extent of negligence
of joint tort feasors in such a case is
immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of
the plaintiff/claimant and need not be
determined by the by the court. However, in
case all the joint tort feasors are before the
court, it may determine the extent of their
liability for the purpose of adjusting interse equities between them at appropriate
stage. The liability of each and every joint
tort feasor vis a vis to plaintiff/claimant
cannot be bifurcated as it is joint and
several liability. In the case of composite
negligence, apportionment of compensation
between tort feasors for making payment to
the plaintiff is not permissible as the
plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover
the
entire
amount
from
the
easiest
targets/solvent defendant.

14. There is a difference between
contributory and composite negligence. In
the case of contributory negligence, a
person who has himself contributed to the
extent cannot claim compensation for the
injuries sustained by him in the accident to
the extent of his own negligence;whereas in
the case of composite negligence, a person
who has suffered has not contributed to the
accident but the outcome of combination of
negligence of two or more other persons.
This Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan
& Ors. [2008 (3) SCC 748] has held that in
case of contributory negligence, injured
need
not
establish
the
extent
of
responsibility
of
each
wrong
doer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrong doer separately. It is only in the case
of contributory negligence that the injured
himself has contributed by his negligence
in the accident. Extent of his negligence is
required to be determined as damages
recoverable by him in respect of the
injuries have to be reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence. The relevant
portion is extracted hereunder :

"6. 'Composite negligence' refers
to the negligence on the part of two or more
persons. Where a person is injured as a
result of negligence on the part of two or
more wrong doers, it is said that the person
was injured on account of the composite
negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a
case, each wrong doer, is jointly and
severally liable to the injured for payment
of the entire damages and the injured
person has the choice of proceeding
against all or any of them. In such a case,
the injured need not establish the extent of
responsibility
of
each
wrong-doer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrong-doer separately. On the other hand
where a person suffers injury, partly due to
the negligence on the part of another
person or persons, and partly as a result of
his own negligence, then the negligence of
the part of the injured which contributed to
the
accident
is
referred
to
as his
contributory negligence. Where the injured
is guilty of some negligence, his claim for
damages is not defeated merely by reason
of the negligence on his part but the
damages recoverable by him in respect of
the injuries stands reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence.

7. Therefore, when two vehicles
are involved in an accident, and one of the
drivers claims compensation from the other
driver alleging negligence, and the other
driver denies negligence or claims that the
injured claimant himself was negligent,
then it becomes necessary to consider
whether the injured claimant was negligent
and if so, whether he was solely or partly
responsible for the accident and the extent
of his responsibility, that is his contributory
5 All. Yogendra Nath Upadhyaya & Anr. Vs. Sailesh Kr. Singh & Ors.
1393
negligence. Therefore where the injured is
himself partly liable, the principle of
'composite negligence' will not apply nor
can there be an automatic inference that
the negligence was 50:50 as has been
assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to
have examined the extent of contributory
negligence of the appellant and thereby
avoided
confusion
between
composite
negligence and contributory negligence.
The High Court has failed to correct the
said error."

18.
This
Court
in
Challa
Bharathamma &Nanjappan (supra) has
dealt with the breach of policy conditions
by the owner when the insurer was asked to
pay the compensation fixed by the tribunal
and the right to recover the same was given
to the insurer in the executing court
concerned if the dispute between the
insurer and the owner was the subjectmatter of determination for the tribunal
and the issue has been decided in favour of
the insured. The same analogy can be
applied to the instant cases as the liability
of the joint tort feasor is joint and several.
In the instant case, there is determination
of inter se liability of composite negligence
to the extent of negligence of 2/3rd and
1/3rd of respective drivers. Thus, the
vehicle - trailor-truck which was not
insured with the insurer, was negligent to
the extent of 2/3rd. It would be open to the
insurer being insurer of the bus after
making payment to claimant to recover
from the owner of the trailor-truck the
amount to the aforesaid extent in the
execution proceedings. Had there been no
determination of the inter se liability for
want of evidence or other joint tort feasor
had not been impleaded, it was not open to
settle such a dispute and to recover the
amount in execution proceedings but the
remedy would be to file another suit or
appropriate proceedings in accordance
with law.

What emerges from the aforesaid
discussion is as follows :

(i) In the case of composite
negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to
sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors
and to recover the entire compensation as
liability of joint tort feasors is joint and
several.

(ii) In the case of composite
negligence, apportionment of compensation
between two tort feasors vis a vis the
plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He
can recover at his option whole damages
from any of them.

(iii) In case all the joint tort
feasors have been impleaded and evidence
is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal
to determine inter se extent of composite
negligence
of
the
drivers.
However,
determination of the extent of negligence
between the joint tort feasors is only for the
purpose of their inter se liability so that
one may recover the sum from the other
after making whole of payment to the
plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has
satisfied the liability of the other. In case
both of them have been impleaded and the
apportionment/ extent of their negligence
has been determined by the court/tribunal,
in main case one joint tort feasor can
recover the amount from the other in the
execution proceedings.

(iv) It would not be appropriate
for the court/tribunal to determine the
extent of composite negligence of the
drivers of two vehicles in the absence of
impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In
such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor
1394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
should be left, in case he so desires, to sue
the other joint tort feasor in independent
proceedings after passing of the decree or
award."

emphasis added

12. The latest decision of the Apex
Court in Khenyei (Supra) has laid down
one further aspect about considering the
negligence
more
particularly
composite/contributory
negligence.
The
deceased or the person concerned should be
shown to have contributed either to the
accident and the impact of accident upon
the victim could have been minimised if he
had taken care. In this case the deceased
was not the author or the co-author of the
accident.

13. There is a fallacious belief of the
learned Tribunal in holding that if claim
petition under Section 140 read with
Section 166 M.V. Act is filed, the claimants
are entitled to amount on only no fault
liability basis and the Presiding Officer
holds that the learned Advocate for the
claimants opted fro getting the amount only
under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, this
could not have been the mandate of the
legislation. The finding to this effect is bad
in the eye of law. The provisions of Section
140 of M.V. Act is read as follows:

"140.
Liability
to
pay
compensation in certain cases on the
principle of no fault.--

(1) Where death or permanent
disablement of any person has resulted from
an accident arising out of the use of a motor
vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the
vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the
owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and
severally, be liable to pay compensation in
respect of such death or disablement in
accordance with the provisions of this
section.

(2) The amount of compensation
which shall be payable under sub-section (1)
in respect of the death of any person shall be
a fixed sum of 1[fifty thousand rupees] and
the amount of compensation payable under
that sub-section in respect of the permanent
disablement of any person shall be a fixed
sum of 2[twenty-five thousand rupees].

(3) In any claim for compensation
under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not
be required to plead and establish that the
death or permanent disablement in respect of
which the claim has been made was due to
any wrongful act, neglect or default of the
owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles
concerned or of any other person.

(4) A claim for compensation under
sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason
of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the
person in respect of whose death or permanent
disablement the claim has been made nor shall
the quantum of compensation recoverable in
respect
of
such
death
or
permanent
disablement be reduced on the basis of the
share of such person in the responsibility for
such death or permanent disablement. 3[(5)
Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) regarding death or bodily injury to
any person, for which the owner of the vehicle
is liable to give compensation for relief, he is
also liable to pay compensation under any
other law for the time being in force: Provided
that the amount of such compensation to be
given under any other law shall be reduced
from the amount of compensation payable
under this section or under section 163A.]"

It is now a cardinal principle
enunciated by the Apex Court that amount
5 All. Yogendra Nath Upadhyaya & Anr. Vs. Sailesh Kr. Singh & Ors.
1395
under Section 140 of M.V. Act is under no
fault liability and is independent of Section
166 of M.V. Act. The difference if the claim
petition is filed under Section 163A and
166 of M.V. Act, the claimants will have to
choose as per the judgment of Deepal
Girishbhai Soni And Ors vs United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 385,
therefore this appeal will have to be
allowed on this short ground. It was a case
of composite negligence, the deceased was
not tort feasor and therefore deducting the
amount is also again fallacious finding of
facts.

14. The finding of fact that both the
drivers were negligent is upheld by this
Court, the amount would be apportioned
between the two tort feasors though
normally this should not be done but in this
case when there are two insurance
companies who have been saddled with
liability
they
both
shall
deposit
compensation as per the negligence namely
50% each of total compensation.

15. This takes this Court to the issue
of compensation. The income of the
deceased in the year of accident and
looking to his profession can be considered
to be Rs.15,000/- per annum. As far as
amount under the head of non-pecuniary
damages are concerned, it should be
Rs.70,000/-. As far as multiplier is
concerned it should be of 5. The sons
though
may
be
major
are
legal
representatives and hence entitled to
compensation, there can be no addition in
future prospects.

16. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants is computed
herein below:

i. Income: Rs.15,000/- p.a

ii. Income after deduction of
personal expenses : Rs. 7500/-

iii. Multiplier applicable : 5

iv. Loss of dependency: Rs.7500
x 5 = Rs.37,500/-

v. Amount under non-pecuniary
head : 30,000/-

vi. Total compensation : 67,500/-

17. 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 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."

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

19. 1 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 respondentInsurance Company shall deposit the
amount within a period of 12 weeks from
1396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. The Insurance
Company who will deposit the entire
amount can have their right to recover the
amount from owner and the Insurance
Company of the other vehicle. As far as
deceased is concerned, it is a case of
composite negligence, hence, the amount
cannot be deducted from the compensation
awarded to the claimants who are the heirs
of a non tort-feasor.

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 the
learned Advocates for ably assisting this
Court.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1396
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Government Appeal No. 845 of 2018

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Panna Lal ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A., Sri Hari Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 304 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Appeal
against
acquittal
-
Circumstantial
Evidence - FIR was lodged on 05.01.2017,
alleging that accused had killed his father,
who was around 90 years of age - Accused
pressurised his father to give money to
him so that he could buy liquor - Charges
framed, acquitted - St. argued that PW-2
had
actually
seen
the
crime
being
committed - Held, unless the view taken
by Trial Court was a view which could not
have been possibly taken on the basis of
evidence available on record, it cannot be
said that view taken by Trial Court was
not a reasonably possible view - Perusal of
St.ments of witnesses shows that findings
of Trial Court were appropriate - Trial
Court's view was definitely a possible
view,
not
perverse
-
Hence,
appeal
dismissed. (Para 2, 7, 10)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-13)