MAC.APP./727/2012 of RAJESH KUMAR & ORS Vs RAJU & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC. APP. 727/2012

Date of decision: 31[st] July, 2012

RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. ....... Appellants Through: Mr. M.K. Sinha, Adv.

versus

RAJU & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv. for R-3.

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

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.The Appellants seek enhancement of compensation of `8,05,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Geeta, who died in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 23.04.2010. `8,05,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Geeta, who died in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 23.04.2010.

2.In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurance Company, my task is to go only into the quantum of compensation. Insurance Company, my task is to go only into the quantum of compensation.

3.During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was working as tailor and was earning `10,000/- per month apart from rendering gratuitous services as the deceased was working as tailor and was earning `10,000/- per month apart from rendering gratuitous services as

housewife.

4.In the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased’s employment as tailor, the Claims Tribunal took the deceased as housewife, valued her gratuitous services as `75,000/- per annum, deducted one-third towards personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of ‘15’ to compute the loss of dependency as `7,50,000/-. employment as tailor, the Claims Tribunal took the deceased as housewife, valued her gratuitous services as `75,000/- per annum, deducted one-third towards personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of ‘15’ to compute the loss of dependency as `7,50,000/-.

5.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,

(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. 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 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 stated in (i), (ii) and (iii) above and addition and deduction thereon as per (iv) and (v) above. 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.”

6.The mark sheet Ex.PW-1/9 shows that the deceased was Matriculate. Thus, the compensation has to be awarded on the basis of salary of Matriculate. Matriculate. Thus, the compensation has to be awarded on the basis of salary of Matriculate.

7.Hence, applying the above ratio, the loss of dependency comes to `14,50,800/- (6448/- + 25% x 12 x 15). to `14,50,800/- (6448/- + 25% x 12 x 15).

8.The Appellants are further awarded sum of `25,000/- towards

loss of love and affection and `10,000/- each towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

9.The overall compensation comes to `14,95,800/-

10.The compensation is thus enhanced from `8,05,000/- to `14,95,800/-. `14,95,800/-.

11.The enhanced compensation of `6,90,800/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

12.Respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with upto date interest in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi within six weeks. directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with upto date interest in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi within six weeks.

13.The enhanced compensation shall be distributed/held in fixed deposit amongst the Appellants in the same proportion as ordered by the Claims Tribunal. deposit amongst the Appellants in the same proportion as ordered by the Claims Tribunal.

14.The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

15.No costs.

16.Pending Applications stand disposed of.

JULY 31, 2012

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE