Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar, JJ.
Poonam Agarwal and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Respondent
F.A.F.O. No. 4430 of 2012
Decided On : 12-02-2020
For the Appellant : Abhijit Banerjee and Sudeep Agarwal
For the Respondents: Vibhuti Narain, Vishesh Kumar Gupta and Hemant Kumar
Point of Law: While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 – Claim of compensation – Injury - This first appeal from order is directed against the award dated 29th September, 2012 passed by the Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Azamgarh allowing the claim petition of the claimants bearing No. 840 of 2009 for a compensation of Rs. 6,89,336/- @ 7% simple interest per annum, for the purposes of enhancement - Assailing the award on the issue of computation of compensation, it has been argued that while making the assessment of income of the deceased son of the claimants –
Finding of the Court:
In normal circumstances 6 to 7% only is admissible in motor accident claim's cases. However, no straightjacket formula can be applied and the interest shall be determined and payable on the facts and circumstances of each case. The deceased was the only issue of his parents and was, thus only bread earner of the family and it is unfortunate that he met with fatal accident and the poor parents had to wait for 3-4 years for the award of compensation and then more than 7 years before the High Court for enhancement on account of wrong assessment of income at the end of the Tribunal in spite of settled legal position in the matter. In such circumstances, therefore, we find it proper to award interest @ 7% from the date of application till date of actual payment made under the award of the Tribunal and @ 9% interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of payment till enhanced payment is made under this order and also over and above the amount if has remained unpaid till date under the award of the Tribunal - Thus the compensation enhanced from Rs. 6,89,366/- to Rs. 24,84,808/-, i.e., by Rs. 17,95,442/- as above shall be paid @ 9% interest from the date of this judgment till actual payment is made of the enhanced compensation including the past any amount if has remained unpaid, by the respondents-Insurance Company till the actual enhanced compensation coupled with unpaid amount, is paid –
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
Authored By : Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
Ramesh Sinha and Ajit Kumar, JJ.
1. Heard Sri Sudeep Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri Vibhuti Narain, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, Sri Hemant Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri V.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the record.
2. This first appeal from order is directed against the award dated 29th September, 2012 passed by the Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Azamgarh allowing the claim petition of the claimants bearing No. 840 of 2009 for a compensation of Rs. 6,89,336/- @ 7% simple interest per annum, for the purposes of enhancement.
3. Assailing the award on the issue of computation of compensation, it has been argued that while making the assessment of income of the deceased son of the claimants, the Tribunal has manifestly erred in taking into consideration only the basic pay and the dearness allowance and then deducting the tax from that. He submits that in view of the authority pronounced by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Sharma v. Bachinder : 2011 LAWS SC 273 the house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance and the medical allowance are also to be added towards the computation of the income. He has also placed reliance upon another authority of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Indira Srivastava, 2008 (70) ALR 323 (SC) : 2008 (62) AIC 129 (SC)
4. On the question of multiplier, it has been argued that multiplier of 12 has wrongly been applied whereas the multiplier of 17 should have been applied as per the IInd Schedule of the The Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and the Rules. It is also argued that on count of future prospects nothing has been added nor, any amount has been paid towards the loss of consortium even towards the funeral expenses only a meager amount has been directed to be paid. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another; (2008) 12 SCC 165 and Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; 2009 (75) ALR 638 (SC) : 2009 (78) AIC 153. and also finally in the case of National Insurance Company Limited, v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (125) ALR 856 (SC) and this is how it has been claimed that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal needed to be enhanced.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company though has sought to defend the order of the Tribunal for the reasons assigned therein and has thus defended the compensation awarded.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and their arguments across the bar, we now proceed to examine the correctness of assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal and consequential determination of compensation. In the matter of assessment of income of salaried or non-salaried person, the legal position has now come to be settled by the decisions of the Apex Court of this country in a series of its judgment and, therefore, it is proper to examine the award in question, in the light of the authorities on this aspect of the Apex Court.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh, 2011 LAWS (SC) 273 vide paragraphs No. 8 and 9 has held thus:
"8 In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others, 2008 (70) ALR 323 (SC) : 2008 (62) AIC 129 (SC) S.B. Sinha, J. has observed that "The term 'income' has different connotations for different purposes. A Court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Loss cause to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monitory terms." His Lordship also stated that if some facilities
