MAC.APP./700/2011 of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs MURARI LAL & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on: 16[th ]March, 2012

+ MAC.APP. 700/2011

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant

Through

Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate.

versus

MURARI LAL & ORS

..... Respondent Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4.

Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.The Appellant New India Assurance Company Limited seeks reduction of compensation of `4,04,700/- awarded for the death of Smt.Bhagwati, who suffered fatal injuries in an accident which occurred on 03.02.2010. reduction of compensation of `4,04,700/- awarded for the death of Smt.Bhagwati, who suffered fatal injuries in an accident which occurred on 03.02.2010.

2.The details of compensation awarded are tabulated as under:- Loss of Dependency`3,24,000/-Loss of Dependency`3,24,000/-

Loss of Consortium

`10,000/-

Loss of Love and Affection `10,000/-Loss to Estate `10,000/-

Funeral Expenses `5,000/-

Medical expenses prior to death `45,700/-

3.The contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that the deceased was aged 57 years. The compensation awarded assuming her income to be `3000/- per month was excessive. 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:-

(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 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 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.”

4.There is no evidence as to the deceased’s educational qualification and thus she has to be awarded compensation on the basis of salary of non-matriculate. Since, she was 57 years old 25% deduction has to be made on the basis of principle (v) above. Applying the principle the compensation payable on account of loss of dependency come to `3,94,875/- (`5850-25%x10x9). As against this, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of `3,24,000/-, thus it cannot be said that the compensation awarded was excessive or exorbitant. qualification and thus she has to be awarded compensation on the basis of salary of non-matriculate. Since, she was 57 years old 25% deduction has to be made on the basis of principle (v) above. Applying the principle the compensation payable on account of loss of dependency come to `3,94,875/- (`5850-25%x10x9). As against this, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of `3,24,000/-, thus it cannot be said that the compensation awarded was excessive or exorbitant.

5.The Appeal is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. dismissed.

MARCH 15, 2012 mr

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JUDGE