MAC.APP./182/2006 of BHOPAL SINGH Vs NU-TECH SECUTIRY PRINTERS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC. APP. No.182/2006

Date of decision: 7[th]August, 2012

BHOPAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate

Versus

NU-TECH SECURITY PRINTERS

..... Respondent Through: Mr. R.B. Shami, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- awarded for the death of Smt. Maya Devi by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 26.04.2001.awarded for the death of Smt. Maya Devi by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 26.04.2001.

2.During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased aged 44 years was running vegetable shop and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The Claims Tribunal declined to believe the Appellant’s case that the deceased Maya Devi was self-employed person. The Claims Tribunal, on the other hand, opined that the deceased was housewife. Relying on Lata Wadhwa & Ors. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197, took the value of the gratuitous services rendered by deceased aged 44 years was running vegetable shop and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The Claims Tribunal declined to believe the Appellant’s case that the deceased Maya Devi was self-employed person. The Claims Tribunal, on the other hand, opined that the deceased was housewife. Relying on Lata Wadhwa & Ors. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197, took the value of the gratuitous services rendered by

the deceased as Rs.3,000/-, deducted 1/3[rd] towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.3,60,000/-. After adding sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the non-pecuniary damages an overall compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- was awarded.

3.The case is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., (MAC.APP. 590/2011) decided on 30[th] January, 2012. This Court noticed the following judgments of the Supreme Court:-Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., (MAC.APP. 590/2011) decided on 30[th] January, 2012. This Court noticed the following judgments of the Supreme Court:-

(i)General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176,

(ii)National Insurance Company Limited v. Deepika & Ors., 2010 (4) ACJ 2221,ACJ 2221,

(iii)Amar Singh Thukral v. Sandeed Chhatwal, ILR (2004) 2 Del 1,

(iv)Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197,

(v)Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr. v. R.M.K. Veluswami & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1, AIR 1962 SC 1,

(vi)A. Rajam v. M. Manikya Reddy & Anr., MANU/AP/0303/1988,

(vii)Morris v. Rigby (1966) 110 Sol Jo 834 and

(viii)Regan v. Williamson 1977 ACJ 331 (QBD England),

and laid down the principle for determination of loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by housewife. Para 34 of the

judgment in Master Manmeet Singh (supra) is extracted hereunder:-

“34. To sum up, the loss of dependency on account of gratuitous

services rendered by housewife shall be:-

(i) Minimum salary of Graduate where she is Graduate.

(ii) Minimum salary of Matriculate where she is Matriculate. Matriculate.

(iii)Minimum salary of non-Matriculate in other cases.

(iv)There will be an addition of 25% in the assumed income in (i), (ii) and (iii) where the age of the homemaker is upto 40 years; the increase will be restricted to 15% where her age is above 40 years but less than 50 years; there will not be any addition in the assumed salary where the age is more than 50 years. (i), (ii) and (iii) where the age of the homemaker is upto 40 years; the increase will be restricted to 15% where her age is above 40 years but less than 50 years; there will not be any addition in the assumed salary where the age is more than 50 years.

(v) When the deceased home maker is above 55 years but less than 60 years; there will be deduction of 25%; and when the deceased home maker is above 60 years there will be deduction of 50% in the assumed income as the services rendered decrease substantially. Normally, the value of gratuitous services rendered will be NIL (unless there is evidence to the contrary) when the home maker is above 65 years. than 60 years; there will be deduction of 25%; and when the deceased home maker is above 60 years there will be deduction of 50% in the assumed income as the services rendered decrease substantially. Normally, the value of gratuitous services rendered will be NIL (unless there is evidence to the contrary) when the home maker is above 65 years.

(vi)If housewife dies issueless, the contribution towards the gratuitous services is much less, as there are greater chances of the husband’s re-marriage. In such cases, the loss of dependency shall be 50% of the income as per the qualification stated in (i), (ii) and (iii) above and addition and deduction thereon as per (iv) and (v) above. gratuitous services is much less, as there are greater chances of the husband’s re-marriage. In such cases, the loss of dependency shall be 50% of the income as per the qualification stated in (i), (ii) and (iii) above and addition and deduction thereon as per (iv) and (v) above.

(vii)There shall not be any deduction towards the personal and living expenses. living expenses.

(viii)As an attempt has been made to compensate the loss of dependency, only notional sum which may be upto ` 25,000/- (on present scale of the money value) towards loss dependency, only notional sum which may be upto ` 25,000/- (on present scale of the money value) towards loss

of love and affection and ` 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, if the husband is alive, may be awarded.

(ix)Since homemaker is not working and thus not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss of estate.”amount should be awarded towards loss of estate.”

4.The minimum wages of non-matriculate on the date of the accident were Rs.2772/-. Applying the ratio of MasterManmeet, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,35,550/-(Rs.2772 + 15% x 12 x 14). were Rs.2772/-. Applying the ratio of MasterManmeet, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,35,550/-(Rs.2772 + 15% x 12 x 14).

5.On adding sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, the overall compensation comes to Rs.5,80,550/-. sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, the overall compensation comes to Rs.5,80,550/-.

6.Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.2,00,550/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the Petition till its payment. The enhanced compensation shall be equally apportioned amongst the Appellants. 50% of the enhanced compensation shall be held Fixed Deposit for period of two years and rest shall be released on deposit.@ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the Petition till its payment. The enhanced compensation shall be equally apportioned amongst the Appellants. 50% of the enhanced compensation shall be held Fixed Deposit for period of two years and rest shall be released on deposit.

7.The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks. the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.

8.The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

9.Pending Applications stand disposed of.

AUGUST 07, 2012 pst

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE