Case: United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manjari Dilip Chunekar &amp; Others

the company was doing extremely well till the untimely death of the deceased and after his death, the business had been affected considerably. It has also come in her evidence that she had to mortgage her jewellery to raise funds; had to send persons appointed by the Company to U.K for training; that the workers had filed cases against her in the Labour Court, and that, she has suffered losses in the business, resulting in her selling two residential flats. The said evidence that has come on record has virtually gone unchallenged. Considering the income-tax returns of all the three years, it appears that there was a rise of more than 100% in the business income of the deceased and hence, the respondent-claimants would be entitled to an addition of 50% towards future prospects. The last drawn income from business as is reflected in the income-tax returns is Rs. 3,74,686/-, after deducting tax on the same. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion, that to the said business income, an addition of 50% would have to be made. The amount therefore, would come to Rs. 5,62,029/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 3,74,686/-. Applying the Multiplier of 14, the amount comes to Rs. 52,45,604/-. Thus, after considering both, income from salary as well as business income, the total amount of compensation that the respondent-claimants would be entitled to, would be Rs. 57,91,604/-. As far as amounts awarded under the conventional heads are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent-claimant; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection to each of the respondent-claimant; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate to each of the respondent-claimants and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. As far as the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are concerned, keeping in mind the judicial pronouncements in this regard, we are of the opinion that the first respondent-claimant would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium; the second and third respondents would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each towards loss of love and affection; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation that would be payable to the respondent-claimants would be Rs. 60,41,604/-.32. The last issue raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the interest rate of 12% p.a. granted by the Tribunal is exorbitant and on the higher side.33. We have perused the judgments of the Apex Court in this regard. The Apex Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (Smt) & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 9 ), noticed that the nationalised banks are granting interest @9% on fixed deposits for one year and held as follows:-"24. Now, we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the MV Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that "in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as may be specified in this behalf". Earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalised banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposits for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants. The amount of Rs 50,000 paid by the Insurance Company under Section 140 shall be deducted from the principal amount as on the date of its payment, and interest would be recalculated on the balance amount of the principal sum from such date."34. The Apex Court in Abati Bezbaruah v. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India & Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 148 ) noticed the varying rate of interest being awarded by the Tribunals, High Courts and Apex Court itself. In the said case, the Apex Court held that the rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and should be decided after taking into consideration the relevant factors like inflation, change in economy, policy being adopted by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, loss of enjoyment of life etc.35. Infact, the Apex Court in Puttamma & Ors. vs. K. L. Narayana Reddy & Anr. (2013) 15 SCC 45 ), kept the question open for Tribunals and Courts to decide the rate of interest, keeping in mind the rate of interest allowed by the Apex Court in similar cases and other factors such as inflation, change in economic policy adopted by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time, the period from which the case is pending, etc. Infact in Puttammas case (supra), the Apex Court enhanced the compensation @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.36. Keeping in mind all the aforesaid Judgments, and after considering the peculiar facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the interest granted on the compensation amount by the Tribunal to the respondent-claimants is on the higher side. Although, the claim petition is of 1996, the delay that has occurred in the said case is not attributable to the appellant alone. Both the parties are responsible for the delay, resulting in the claim petition of 1996 being decided in 2013. As is evident from the record, the respondent-claimants sought amendment of their claim petition in 2011, which was allowed in 2012. Having regard to the same, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met, if the interest granted on the aforesaid amount is reduced from 12% to 9% p.a. in the facts of the case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Thus, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not proved, in the light of what is discussed hereinabove.As far as the contention of thelearned counsel for theappellant, that the income tax documents were merely marked as Articles and the contents thereof were not proved, is devoid of merit, inasmuch as, the respondentclaimants had produced Mr. Veer, anOfficer to prove the said acknowledgments of the filing of Income Tax Returns, which are at Exhibits 43 to 45. It appears from the record i.e. Exhibit 1, that the Advocate for the appellant had declined toShri S. R. Veer, when he was offered forview of the said position, it now cannot be contended that the contents thereof were not proved or that the said documents were not proved. Infact, the correctness of the said acknowledgments of Income Tax Returns, at Exhibits 43 to 45 have gone unchallenged, as is evident from the order dated 9th January, 2006. In any event, a Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not bound by the strict Rules of Evidence. Thus, there is no merit in the contention raised by thelearned counsel for theappellant, that the Income Tax documents have not been proved by the respondentg that the first respondentclaimant was admittedly the author of the income tax return filed for the yeara suggestion ought to have been given to her that the same was inflated. In the absence of any suggestion to that effect, the income mentioned in Exhibit 45 has virtually gone unchallenged. Thus, the said income of the yearcertainly be considered, while considering the income of the deceased on the date of hiswas no justification for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 60,000 perfar as the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are concerned, keeping in mind the judicial pronouncements in this regard, we are of the opinion that the firstwould be entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/towards loss of consortium; the second and third respondents would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/each towards loss of love and affection; Rs. 25,000/towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation that would be payable to theThe last issue raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the interest rate of 12% p.a. granted by the Tribunal is exorbitant and on the higher side.Infact, the Apex Court in PuttammaOrs. vs. K. L. Narayana ReddyAnr. (2013) 15 SCC 45 ), kept the question open for Tribunals and Courts to decide the rate of interest, keeping in mind the rate of interest allowed by the Apex Court in similar cases and other factors such as inflation, change in economic policy adopted by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time, the period from which the case is pending, etc. Infact in Puttammas case (supra), the Apex Court enhanced the compensation @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.36. Keeping in mind all the aforesaid Judgments, and after considering the peculiar facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the interest granted on the compensation amount by the Tribunal to theis on the higher side. Although, the claim petition is of 1996, the delay that has occurred in the said case is not attributable to the appellant alone. Both the parties are responsible for the delay, resulting in the claim petition of 1996 being decided in 2013. As is evident from the record, thesought amendment of their claim petition in 2011, which was allowed in 2012. Having regard to the same, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met, if the interest granted on the aforesaid amount is reduced from 12% to 9% p.a. in the facts of the case.