MAC.APP./693/2012 of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs SURENDER & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC.APP. 693/2012

Date of decision: 9[th] July, 2012

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD..... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.

versus

SURENDER & ORS ..... Respondent

Through: Nemo.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.The Appellant New India Assurance Company Limited takes exceptions to judgment dated 24.04.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of `8,90,035/- was awarded in favour of Respondents No.1 to 4 for the death of Smt. Seema Sharma in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 06.09.2009. exceptions to judgment dated 24.04.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of `8,90,035/- was awarded in favour of Respondents No.1 to 4 for the death of Smt. Seema Sharma in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 06.09.2009.

2.It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that Respondents No.1 to 4 themselves claimed that the deceased was gainfully employed and was earning `8,000/- per month. Respondents having failed to establish their case, the compensation ought to have been granted on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker. I would not agree. Respondents No.1 to 4 themselves claimed that the deceased was gainfully employed and was earning `8,000/- per month. Respondents having failed to establish their case, the compensation ought to have been granted on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker. I would not agree.

3.This case is covered by the judgment of this Court inRoyal 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, Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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. 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.

(vi)If housewife dies issueless, the contribution towards the gratuitous services is much less, as -towards the gratuitous services is much less, as -there are greater chances of the husband’s remarriage. In such cases, the loss of dependency shall be 50% of the income as per the qualification 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. personal and 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 of love and affection and ` 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, if the husband is alive, may be awarded. loss of 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.”earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss of estate.”

4.The Claims Tribunal relied on the judgment of this Court and granted compensation in terms of the principles extracted above. granted compensation in terms of the principles extracted above.

5.There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

6.The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed. dismissed.

7.The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. Insurance Company.

8.Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

JULY 09, 2012 vk

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE