MAC.APP./195/2012 of BABU RAM & ORS Vs OM PRAKASH & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC.APP. 195/2012

Decided on: 5[th] March, 2012

BABU RAM & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate

versus

OM PRAKASH & ORS.. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.The Appellants seek enhancement of the compensation of ` 5,03,000/- awarded for the death of Smt. Satto Devi who died in motor accident which occurred on 24.09.2009. 5,03,000/- awarded for the death of Smt. Satto Devi who died in motor accident which occurred on 24.09.2009.

2.During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased used to sell milk and was earning ` 8,000/- per month. In the absence of any proof of deceased’s earning, the Claims Tribunal took the notional income of ` 3,000/- per month as per Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197, adopted multiplier of 13 at the deceased’s age (50 years) to compute the loss of dependency as ` 4,68,000/-. Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased used to sell milk and was earning ` 8,000/- per month. In the absence of any proof of deceased’s earning, the Claims Tribunal took the notional income of ` 3,000/- per month as per Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197, adopted multiplier of 13 at the deceased’s age (50 years) to compute the loss of dependency as ` 4,68,000/-.

MAC APP 195/2012

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the Appellants were entitled to loss of dependency on the basis of salary of non-Matriculate as there is no evidence of the deceased’s qualification.Appellants were entitled to loss of dependency on the basis of salary of non-Matriculate as there is no evidence of the deceased’s qualification.

4.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 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

MAC APP 195/2012

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. 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.

(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.”

Minimum wages of non-Matriculate on the date of the

accident i.e. 24.09.2009 were ` 4146/-. Hence, applying the

above ration, the loss of dependency comes to ` 7,43,792/- (4146/- + 15% x 12 x 13). (4146/- + 15% x 12 x 13).

6.The Claims Tribunal awarded sum of ` 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) of love and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011)

MAC APP 195/2012

11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted only ` 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would enhance the compensation under this head from ` 10,000/- to ` 25,000/-.

The overall compensation is re-assessed as under:-

The compensation is enhanced from `5,03,000/- to ` 7,98,792/-. The enhanced amount of ` 2,95,792/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The enhanced amount of ` 2,95,792/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

9.Respondent No.2 National Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with upto date interest within 30 days with Registrar General of this Court. directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with upto date interest within 30 days with Registrar General of this Court.

10.The enhanced amount shall be distributed amongst the Appellants in the same proportion as ordered by the Claims Tribunal and shall be held in fixed deposit for period of three years. Appellants in the same proportion as ordered by the Claims Tribunal and shall be held in fixed deposit for period of three years.

11.The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

12.No costs.

MARCH 05, 2012 vk

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

MAC APP 195/2012