Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 653 (ALL)

Krishna v. Super Road Lines

2022-04-28

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sudhanshu Behari Lal Gour, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 5.9.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Etawah (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No.427 of 2001 awarding a sum of Rs.1,59,500/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% from 5.9.2003 namely the date on which the respondent-National Insurance Co. Ltd. was made party. 3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. The accident took place on 18.2.2001. The deceased was 41 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.15,000/-per annum, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 15 and that is how the Tribunal has calculated the total compensation to be Rs.1,59,500/- 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the income of the deceased should be considered to be at least Rs.3,000/-per month as he was a skilled driver. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not added any amount under the head of future loss of income which should be granted in view of decision in of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15, which would be 114 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC). 6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded under non pecuniary damages is on the lower side and is required to be enhanced in view of the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It is further submitted that the deceased was survived by his widow, one son and two daughter, hence, the deduction towards personal would be 1/4th. 7. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It is further submitted that the deceased was survived by his widow, one son and two daughter, hence, the deduction towards personal would be 1/4th. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that the interest awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be as per the repo rate prevailing in those days. 8. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the income which has not been proved before the Tribunal cannot be granted. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the accident is of the year 2001 whereas the judgment of the Tribunal is prior to the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and, therefore, non addition of future loss of income is just and proper as the deceased was self employed. It is also submitted that that the amount under non pecuniary head does not require any enhancement. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 9. In response to the above objection, learned counsel for the respondent has again submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) can be applied retrospectively in case the appeal is pending. 10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the factual data. It is an admitted position of fact that the Insurance Company has accepted the award and has not challenge the same This Court finds that the accident occurred on 18.2.2001 causing death of Tejveer Singh who was 41 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.15000/-per annum which according to this Court, in the year of accident, would be at least Rs.3,000/-per month as he was a skilled driver. To which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 41-45, 25% of the income will have to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Versus Susamma Thomas reported in 1993 (0) AIJEL-SC 9412 reiterated in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The deduction as granted by the Tribunal is maintained. The multiplier would be 14 to which looking to the pendency of the matter which has been pending here since more than 16 years. The deduction as granted by the Tribunal is maintained. The multiplier would be 14 to which looking to the pendency of the matter which has been pending here since more than 16 years. Deduction of 1/3rd is maintained. Looking to the general trend even in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and another Vs. R.M.K Veluswami and other, 1962 SCR(1) 929, the addition of 25% can be granted. As far as amount under non-pecuniary heads is concerned, the appellants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/-plus Rs.50,000/-to each major daughter is granted as by now they would have become major. 11. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: i. Annual Income: Rs.36,000/-(Rs.3,000/- per month x 12 ) ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 25% namely Rs.9,000/- iii. Total income : Rs.36,000 + Rs.9,000/-= Rs.45,000/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.30,000/- v. Multiplier applicable : 14 vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.30,000 x 14 = Rs.4,20,000/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs. 70,000/-+ Rs.50,000/-+ Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- = Rs.2,20,000/- viii. Total compensation : Rs.6,40,000/- 12. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, the claimants would be entitled to 6% rate of interest on the enhanced compensation. However, for the period the appeal has remained without condoning the delay i.e. from 2004 to 2022, for no fault of respondent-Insurance Company, the interest payable would be 3%. Thereafter again 6% on the enhanced amount till the amount is deposited. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal on originally awarded amount is maintained. 13. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 14. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest as directed above. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 15. Recently the Gujrat High Court in case titled the Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), R/Special Civil Application No. 4800 of 2021 decided on 5.4.2022 held that interest awarded by the Tribunal under Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act is not taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. 15. Recently the Gujrat High Court in case titled the Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), R/Special Civil Application No. 4800 of 2021 decided on 5.4.2022 held that interest awarded by the Tribunal under Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act is not taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. 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 20 years have elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R.11. 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 V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 17. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagauri 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. 18. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. 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. 18. 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 not blindly apply the judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case. 19. 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 V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers.