MAC.APP./266/2012 of MOHD SALEEM Vs PRAMOD KUMAR KWATRA & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC.APP. 266/2012

Decided on: 19[th] April, 2012

MOHD. SALEEM .... Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Mannie, Advocate

versus

PRAMOD KUMAR KWATRA & ORS..... Respondents Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.The Appellant who is the husband of deceased Smt. Momina Khatoon seeks enhancement of compensation of `13,69,000/- awarded for her death in motor accident which occurred on 23.05.2008. Khatoon seeks enhancement of compensation of `13,69,000/- awarded for her death in motor accident which occurred on 23.05.2008.

2.During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased was housewife. The Claims Tribunal while referring to Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197,and Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Limited., (2010) 9 SCC 218, took the value of the gratuitous service rendered by house wife at `3,000/- per Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased was housewife. The Claims Tribunal while referring to Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197,and Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Limited., (2010) 9 SCC 218, took the value of the gratuitous service rendered by house wife at `3,000/- per

MAC APP 266/2012

month, deducted 50% towards her personal and living expenses and computed the loss of dependency as `3,24,000/-.

3.The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is extracted in tabulated form as under:- in tabulated form as under:-

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,

MAC APP 266/2012

(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 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

MAC APP 266/2012

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 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.”

5.The deceased in this case was non-Matriculate. The salary of non-Matriculate shall have to be taken into consideration for calculation of the loss of dependency. Moreover, the deceased non-Matriculate shall have to be taken into consideration for calculation of the loss of dependency. Moreover, the deceased

The deceased in this case was non-Matriculate. The salary of

MAC APP 266/2012

died issueless and, therefore, 50% deduction shall be made as per Para 34 (vi) of Master Manmeet (supra).

6.The minimum wages of non-Matriculate on the date of the accident were `3826/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to ` 5,16,510/- (3826/- x 50% + 25% x 12 x 18). accident were `3826/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to ` 5,16,510/- (3826/- x 50% + 25% x 12 x 18).

7.On adding notional sums of `25,000/- towards love and affection and `10,000/- each towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the overall compensation comes to `5,61,510/-. affection and `10,000/- each towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the overall compensation comes to `5,61,510/-.

8.The compensation is thus enhanced from `3,69,000/- to `5,61,510/- which shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit. 5,61,510/- which shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit.

9.The Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the excess amount of `1,92,510/- alongwith the interest within six weeks with the Registrar General of this Court and which shall be released immediately to the Appellant in terms of the Tribunal’s order. the excess amount of `1,92,510/- alongwith the interest within six weeks with the Registrar General of this Court and which shall be released immediately to the Appellant in terms of the Tribunal’s order.

10.The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

APRIL 19, 2012 vk vk

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

MAC APP 266/2012