MAC.APP./747/2011 of ARUN SRIVASTAVA & ORS Vs SANJAY & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC.APP. 747/2011

Decided on: 17[th] February, 2012

ARUN SRIVASTAVA & ORS ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Adv.

versus

SANJAY & ORS ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

C.M. APPL.15558/2011 (delay)

There is delay of 145 days in filing the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 145 days in filing the Appeal is condoned. reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 145 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

MAC.APP. 747/2011

1.This Appeal relates to the death of Prabha Srivastava, housewife who was aged about 51 years on the date of the accident which took place on 12.08.2007. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 24.08.2007. housewife who was aged about 51 years on the date of the accident which took place on 12.08.2007. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 24.08.2007.

2.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (the Claims Tribunal)

MAC APP 747/2011

attempted to follow the second schedule, noticed Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. National Insurance Company, JT 2010 (7) SC 304; accepted the income of the deceased’s husband as ` 23,626/- took the notional income of the deceased as ` 5,000/- deducted 1/3[rd] towards personal and living expenses to calculate the loss of dependency. After adding sum of ` 3,87,113/- spent on treatment and notional sum under conventional head compensation of ` 8,52,113/- was granted.

3.This case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Royal 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

MAC APP 747/2011

& 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. is Matriculate.

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

MAC APP 747/2011

(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. 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. 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.

(vii)There shall not be any deduction towards the personal and living expenses. the 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. 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.

(ix)Since homemaker is not working and thus not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss of estate.”not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss of estate.”

4.There is no evidence with regard to the educational qualification of the deceased. Thus, I shall take the value of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased to be of non Matriculate. of the deceased. Thus, I shall take the value of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased to be of non Matriculate.

MAC APP 747/2011

Following the principles as laid down by this Court in Master Manmeet Singh (supra) the loss of dependency comes to ` 5,11,632/- {3876/- (salary of non matriculate on the date of the accident) x 12 x 11).

The overall compensation is tabulated as under:-

6.The compensation is enhanced from `8,52,113/- to ` 9,53,745/-. The enhanced amount of ` 1,01,632/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The enhanced amount of ` 1,01,632/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

7.Respondent No.3 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with upto date interest within 30 days with Registrar General of this Court. is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with upto date interest within 30 days with Registrar General of this Court.

The same shall be released in favour of the first Appellant immediately on deposit.

8.The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

9.No costs.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

FEBRUARY 17, 2012 vk

MAC APP 747/2011