Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 588 (ALL)

REKHA DEVI v. MOHD. ARIF

2017-02-20

K.J.THAKER, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Bhawesh Rai, Advocate for Respondent-Insurance Company. 2. Since the only question of quantum vis-a-vis notional income has been raised, as requested by learned counsel for the parties, we roceed to decide this appeal finally at this stage and dispense with other requirements. 3. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1988”) has arisen from judgment and award dated 31.7.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 245 of 2002. Claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- with 6% interest. 4. Brief facts for our purpose are that on 4.5.2002 at about 1.00 am in the night, when Randhir Singh (Deceased) had gone to village Gona of Lalitpur District from Moth, in Barat of Ratiram son of Siyasharan, resident of Sindhi Colony and bus was returning, when it reached about four kilometer south of village Atariya in controlled speed, the driver of truck number M.P. 15 G 0856, Israr Khan, came from opposite direction driving the truck rashly and negligently in high speed without giving horn had collided with bus due to which appellant No. 1’s husband died on the spot including five other persons. Many passengers got injuries. Several persons witnessed the aforesaid incident. The First (Information) Report of the incident had been got lodged at Police Station-Moth, District-Jhansi against the truck driver Israr Khan on the day of incident itself. It is pleaded that deceased was a healthy, laborious and bright young man who was engaged in the work of selling milk of four cow-buffalos at Moth Bazar (Market) after carrying the same there and he was earning Rupees Three Thousand per month by which he was bearing the livelihood of his family. 5. Appellant No. 1 examined herself and in her oral testimony submitted that her husband died in accident occurred on 4.5.2002. He was 25 years of age at the time of accident and having his own cattle, supplying milk. To bring home this averment in petition, a documentary evidence of receipt given by one Randhir Singh to show that deceased was selling eight liters of milk to him was brought on record. He was 25 years of age at the time of accident and having his own cattle, supplying milk. To bring home this averment in petition, a documentary evidence of receipt given by one Randhir Singh to show that deceased was selling eight liters of milk to him was brought on record. However, Tribunal did not consider the said assertion and fixed notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per year. 6. Deceased at the time of accident was 25 years old. As per decisions in Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2001 (8) SCC 197 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Association of Victims for Uphaar Tragedy and others, 2011(14) SCC 481 , notional income of a person having his own business even in 2003 would be Rs. 3000/- per month and that would mean Rs. 36,000/- per annum, out of which if we deduct 1/3 towards personal expenses, it would come to Rs. 24,000/-. Therefore, family would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 24,000/- per annum as compensation. To this, looking to the age of deceased, 50% will have to be added in the income towards future prospect, which would come to Rs. 36,000/-. Hence Rs. 36,000/- will have to be awarded as income including loss of future prospect. Appellant No. 1 was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and, therefore, under that head also a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- will have to be added. Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses is also awarded. 7. Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition. It is contended that interest at the rate of 6% is on much lower side and it should be 9%. 8. We find in recent authorities, Courts have held that appropriate rate of interest should be 9%. 9. In Neeta v. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, (2015) 3 SCC 590 , where accident took place on 22.3.2011, Court allowed 9% rate of interest and held that interest awarded by Tribunal at 8% was erroneous. Para-11 of the judgment reads as under : “The appellants are also entitled to the interest on the compensation awarded by this Court in these appeals at the rate of 9% per annum alongwith the amount under the different heads as indicated above. Para-11 of the judgment reads as under : “The appellants are also entitled to the interest on the compensation awarded by this Court in these appeals at the rate of 9% per annum alongwith the amount under the different heads as indicated above. The Courts below have erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 8 % per annum on the compensation awarded by them to the Appellants without following the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and others, (2011) 14SCC 481. Accordingly, we award the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation determined in these appeals from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.” 10. In Kanhsingh v. Tukaram, 2015 (1) SCALE 366 , where accident had taken place on 2.7.2006 but tribunal awarded no interest, Court held that this is erroneous and 9 % interest should have been allowed in view of the principles laid down in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2011(14) SCC 481 . 11. In Kalpanaraj and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC, where accident took place on or before 1994, High Court had awarded interest at the rate of 9 % per annum which was challenged that it is on higher side. Court upheld said rate of interest. 12. In Shashikala and others v. Gangalakshmamma and another, (2015) 9 SCC 150 , where accident had taken place on 14.12.2006, Court allowed 9 % rate of interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 13. In Asha Verman and others v. Maharaj Singh and others, 2015 (4) SCALE 329 , High Court awarded interest at the rate of 8 %. Accident took place on 27.11.2016. It was held that 8 % interest is on lower side and it should be 9 %. 14. In Surit Gupta v. United India Insurance Company, (2015) 11 SCC 457 , accident took place in July, 1990. Punjab and Haryana High Court had awarded interest at the rate of 6 %. Court held that it is on lower side and it should be 9 %. 15. In Chanderi Devi and another v. Jaspal Singh and others, (2015) 11 SCC 703 , date of accident is September 2006 and the incumbent died on 4.10.2006. Punjab and Haryana High Court had awarded interest at the rate of 6 %. Court held that it is on lower side and it should be 9 %. 15. In Chanderi Devi and another v. Jaspal Singh and others, (2015) 11 SCC 703 , date of accident is September 2006 and the incumbent died on 4.10.2006. Court awarded 9 % interest. 16. In Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, (2015) 4 SCC 237 , incident was of 21.9.1990. Tribunal awarded 15 % interest which was reduced to 12% by Gujrat High Court. Court held that it is on higher side and awarded 9% interest following its decisions in Amresh Kumari v. Niranjan Lal Jagdish Parshad Jain, 2010 ACJ 551 (SC) and Mohinder Kaur v. Hira Nand Sindhi, (2007) ACJ 2123 (SC). 17. In view of above, 6% interest awarded by Tribunal cannot be justified. In our view interest should be paid at 9% per annum. 18. The appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award is modified. Amount of compensation shall be deposited within a period of 12 weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order, after deducting amount, if any, already deposited.