MAC.APP./720/2010 of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs GHANSHYAM & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 24[th] July, 2012

+ MAC. APP. 720/2010ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD...... Appellant Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv.

versus

GHANSHYAM & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Dr. Rameshwar Dayal Adv. with Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. for R-1 to R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.The Appeal is directed against judgment dated 13.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of `8,56,000/- awarded for the death of Smt. Geeta who died in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 04.09.2006. passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of `8,56,000/- awarded for the death of Smt. Geeta who died in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 04.09.2006.

2.On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL-1LE-3906 by Respondent No.4. accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL-1LE-3906 by Respondent No.4.

3.During the inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was found that the deceased Geeta was housewife who left behind her husband and two minor children. The Claims Tribunal took the value of gratuitous services rendered by Geeta to the family as the deceased Geeta was housewife who left behind her husband and two minor children. The Claims Tribunal took the value of gratuitous services rendered by Geeta to the family as

`4,000/- per month and awarded compensation of ` 8,16,000/- towards the loss of gratuitous services to Respondents No.1 to 3.

4.The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is tabulated hereunder:-

It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the value of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased at `4,000/- per month was excessive and exorbitant.

6.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,

(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 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 ` 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. 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.”

7.Respondents No.1 to 3 did not produce any evidence with regard to the educational qualification of the deceased. She was aged 27 years at the time of the accident. Thus, taking the value of gratuitous services as Minimum Wages of non-Matriculate i.e. `3505/- in terms of Master Manmeet Singh and applying the principles extracted above, the loss of dependency comes to regard to the educational qualification of the deceased. She was aged 27 years at the time of the accident. Thus, taking the value of gratuitous services as Minimum Wages of non-Matriculate i.e. `3505/- in terms of Master Manmeet Singh and applying the principles extracted above, the loss of dependency comes to

`8,93,775/- (3505/- + 25% x 12 x 17).

8.The loss of dependency itself is more than the overall compensation of `8,56,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is excessive. The same is just and reasonable. compensation of `8,56,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is excessive. The same is just and reasonable.

9.The Appeal is groundless. The same is accordingly dismissed.

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

11.Pending Applications stand disposed of.

JULY 24, 2012

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE