Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 762 (ALL)

Hoti Lal v. Lakhpat Singh

2023-03-21

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER

body2023
JUDGMENT : KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. 1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Subhash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and order dated 29.04.1997 passed by MACT/XVth-Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No. 185 of 1987 awarding a sum of Rs. 98,000/- as compensation with interest at therate of 10%. 3. The deceased is survived by his father, wife, son and daughter. Deceased being 25 years of age is not in dispute. He was a labourer doing labour work is not in dispute. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent-Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 14.05.1985 at about 6:30 hrs, deceased Mohar Singh was going Agra from his by-cycle and when he reached near village Digner a bus bearing no. USY-9555 driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed into the by-cycle of the Mohar Singh and as a result of which Mohar Singh died on the spot. 5. The accident occurred on 14.05.1985. The deceased was 25 year old labour (rajmistri) and was earning Rs. 1,050/- p.m. He was survived by his father, widow and two minor children a son and a daughter. The tribunal has considered his income to be Rs. 750/- granted multiplier of 16 and Rs. 2,000/- to his widow under non pecuniary damages and ultimately assessed the total compensation to be Rs. 98,000/- with 10% interest from 22.02.1993 till payment was made. 6. It is contended by Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant that income should be considered at Rs. 1,000/- plus 40% to be added under future loss of income even under the old act under the judgment of Gobald Motor Services Ltd. and Another vs. R.M.K. Velusamy, 1962 (1) SCR 929 the should be added for future loss of income and/3rd may to be deducted for personal expenses and the multiplier of 18 would be admissible, Rs. 70,000/- may be given under non pecuniary damages. 7. 70,000/- may be given under non pecuniary damages. 7. As against this, Sri Subhash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently submits that in absence of any evidence on record the income considered by the tribunal is just and proper, however, he could not point that addition of future loss of income which has not been given is just and proper, multiplier granted is just and proper. 8. While considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court accepts the the submission of Sri Subhash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the Insurance Company that father, brother and sister cannot be granted non pecuniary damages when the wife is falling under class-1 and is the recipient of the benefits. This Court feels that income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs. 750/- p.m. to which as he was 35 years of age and as to the thumb rule and in view of the decisions in Gobald Motor Services (supra) and Susamma Thomas (supra) 40% should be added towards future loss of income, 1/3rd will have to be deducted and multiplier of 18 looking to the age of the deceased will have to be granted and Rs. 50,000/- for non pecuniary damages will have to be granted. 9. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellant is computed herein-below: (i) Income Rs. 750/- per month (ii) Percentage towards future prospects 40% namely Rs. 300/- (iii) Total income Rs. 750 + 300 = Rs. 1,050/- (iv) Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs. 700/- (v) Annual loss Rs. 700 x 12 = Rs. 8,400 (vi) Multiplier applicable 18 (vii) Loss of dependency Rs. 84,00 x 18 = Rs. 1,51,200/- (viii) Amount under non pecuniary heads Rs. 50,000/- (ix) Total compensation Rs. 2,01,200/- 10. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, the tribunal has considered the grant of interest only after the insurance company was impleaded as a party respondent. The liability to pay compensation arises when the claim petition is filed. The question of interest even under the old act would be to pay compensation from the date claim petition is filed. The said decision of the tribunal requires reconsideration and the principles for grant of interest will have to be look into. The liability to pay compensation arises when the claim petition is filed. The question of interest even under the old act would be to pay compensation from the date claim petition is filed. The said decision of the tribunal requires reconsideration and the principles for grant of interest will have to be look into. The accident took place in the year 1987, the insurance company would be liable to pay interest not from 1993 but from the date of filing of the claim petition. Hence, the interest is to be from the date claim petition is filed irrespective of the joining of the insurance company as a party respondent. This takes this Court to the percentage of interest granted by the tribunal and objected by the insurance company. Thus rate of interest could not have been 10% in the year 1987, even the rapo rates in the year of accident and when the matter was decided in the year 1997 were not more than 9% is the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company who has orally objected for slashing the interest as the matter has remain pending before this Court also for no fault of the insurance company. The oral objection under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. of Sri Subhash Chandra Srivastava is accepted. The interest is to be paid from the date of filing of claim petition which is the law and it cannot be from the date the insurance company was impleaded, however, due to passage of long time the said order is disturbed for awarded amount the interest at 7% from filing of the claim petition till the judgment of tribunal and thereafter it would be at 6% on the awarded amount. 11. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Total compensation of Rs. 2,01,200/- is allowed with interest at 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition till judgment and award of the tribunal and 6% thereafter till amount is deposited. Award 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 directed above. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 13. Award 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 directed above. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 13. 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 vs. Venugopal, 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Record be sent back to tribunal forthwith. 17. This Court is thankful to both the learned Advocates for ably assisting this Court.