MAC.APP./1078/2012 of BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs YADRAM & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 28[th] September, 2012

+ MAC. APP. 1078/2012

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.TD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Rajat Brar, Advocate

versus

YADRAM & ORS.

Through:

..... Respondents

Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate for R-1 to R-4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

CAVEAT 1013/2012

Learned counsel for the Caveator Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate, has entered appearance. The Caveat is discharged.

C.M. APPL No.17132/2012 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

MAC APP. No.1078/2012

1.Issue notice to Respondents No.1 to 4.

2.Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondents

No.1 to 4 accepts notice.

3.With the consent of the counsel for the parties the Appeal is taken up for final disposal. for final disposal.

4.The Appellant takes exception to the judgment dated 5[th] July, 2012 on the ground that while granting compensation for loss of gratuitous services rendered by housewife Smt.Rukmani Devi, wife of the First Respondent and mother of Respondents No.2 to 4, although the Claims Tribunal purported to follow the judgment of this Court in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., 2012 ACJ 721 yet granted non-pecuniary damages not only in violation of the judgment in Master Manmeet Singh but also the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.2012 on the ground that while granting compensation for loss of gratuitous services rendered by housewife Smt.Rukmani Devi, wife of the First Respondent and mother of Respondents No.2 to 4, although the Claims Tribunal purported to follow the judgment of this Court in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., 2012 ACJ 721 yet granted non-pecuniary damages not only in violation of the judgment in Master Manmeet Singh but also the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.

5.Learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 4 states that the compensation may be awarded in accordance with the principles laid down in Master Manmeet Singh.compensation may be awarded in accordance with the principles laid down in Master Manmeet Singh.

It may be noticed that in Sarla Verma, the Supreme Court laid down that compensation of `5,000/- to `10,000/- each should be awarded towards loss to estate and loss to consortium. The Claims Tribunal went on to award compensation of `1,00,000/- towards loss to estate and `50,000/- towards loss to consortium. down that compensation of `5,000/- to `10,000/- each should be awarded towards loss to estate and loss to consortium. The Claims Tribunal went on to award compensation of `1,00,000/- towards loss to estate and `50,000/- towards loss to consortium.

It has to be borne in mind that when compensation is awarded for loss of gratuitous services rendered by housewife, the housewife is not earning anything and the dependents is compensated for the services rendered by woman as mother and as wife. This aspect was dealt with by this Court in the for loss of gratuitous services rendered by housewife, the housewife is not earning anything and the dependents is compensated for the services rendered by woman as mother and as wife. This aspect was dealt with by this Court in the

case of Master Manmeet Singh, and it was laid down that no compensation will be awarded towards loss to estate.

The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of `2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `1,00,000/- towards loss of care and attention. Normally nominal sum of `25,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of love and affection. [(Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh, (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2009)

17 SCC 627].

There was no justification for granting sum of `1,00,000/- towards loss of care and attention as the entire sum for death of the housewife was granted towards loss of care and attention and services rendered by her. The order passed by the Claims Tribunal shows that the compensation awarded is not just and reasonable; the impugned order is set aside and the compensation is to be awarded on the principles laid down in Master Manmeet Singh.

There was no evidence with regard to the deceased Smt.Rukmani Devi’s qualification; thus, Respondents No.1 to 4 have to be granted compensation on the basis of the minimum salary of non-matriculate. There would be an addition of 15% as the deceased was aged 45 years. The loss of gratuitous services thus comes to `11,30,220/-(5850+15% x 12 x 14).

Respondents No.1 to 4 are further entitled to sum of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `10,000/- each towards loss of funeral expenses and loss of consortium.

12.The overall compensation thus comes to `11,75,220/- which shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment. shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.

13.The compensation shall be equally proportioned among the four Claimants (Respondents No.1 to 4). The compensation payable to Respondents No.2 to 4 shall be held in fixed deposit in nationalized Bank till they attained the age of 21 years. Claimants (Respondents No.1 to 4). The compensation payable to Respondents No.2 to 4 shall be held in fixed deposit in nationalized Bank till they attained the age of 21 years.

14.The Respondents(Claimants) shall be entitled to premature release of the amount in case the same is needed for their higher education. release of the amount in case the same is needed for their higher education.

15.Fifty percent of the compensation payable to the First Respondent shall be held in fixed deposit for period of two years. Rest shall be released on deposit. Respondent shall be held in fixed deposit for period of two years. Rest shall be released on deposit.

16.The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation as awarded with the Claims Tribunal within four weeks. compensation as awarded with the Claims Tribunal within four weeks.

17.The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

18.CM APPL. 17131/2012 stands dismissed in view of the final disposal of the Appeal. disposal of the Appeal.

19.Statutory amount of `25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company Appellant Insurance Company

20.Order dasti.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2012

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE