MAC.APP./132/2008 of IFTKHAR Vs ANESTHETIC GASES P.LTD.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC APP. 132/2008

Date of decision: 3[rd] September, 2012

IFTKHAR

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. S.N.Parashar, Adv.

versus

ANESTHETIC GASES (P.) LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.K.Soni, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `3,94,503/- awarded for the death of Smt. Sabra Begum, who died in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 26.06.2005. for the death of Smt. Sabra Begum, who died in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 26.06.2005.

2.During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that apart from looking after household work, the deceased was doing tailoring and stitching work. The Claims Tribunal disbelieved that the deceased was in gainful employment and took minimum wages of an unskilled worker to award the loss of dependency for the gratuitous services rendered by the deceased as housewife. Tribunal) it was claimed that apart from looking after household work, the deceased was doing tailoring and stitching work. The Claims Tribunal disbelieved that the deceased was in gainful employment and took minimum wages of an unskilled worker to award the loss of dependency for the gratuitous services rendered by the deceased as housewife.

3.It is urged that the compensation awarded is very low and meager.

4.This case is covered by the judgment of this Court inRoyal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., 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, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176,

(ii)National Insurance Company Limited v. Deepika & Ors., 2010 (4) ACJ 2221,ACJ 2221,

(iii)Amar Singh Thukral v. Sandeed Chhatwal, ILR (2004) 2 Del 1,

(iv)Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197,

(v)Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr. v. R.M.K. Veluswami & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1, 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.

(ii) Minimum salary of Matriculate where she is Matriculate. Matriculate.

(iii)Minimum salary of non-Matriculate in 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. (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. 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. 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. 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. 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.”amount should be awarded towards loss of estate.”

5.An Appeal being SLP (C) No.19711/2012, filed against the above referred judgment as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Shiv Kumar & Ors., was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 24.07.2012. referred judgment as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Shiv Kumar & Ors., was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 24.07.2012.

6.Thus, following Master Manmeet Singh the loss of dependency comes to ` 6,25,388/- (3237/- + 15% x 12 x 14). ` 6,25,388/- (3237/- + 15% x 12 x 14).

7.I would enhance the compensation towards loss of love and affection to ` 25,000/-. The Appellant would be further entitled to sum of `10,000/- each towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 25,000/-. The Appellant would be further entitled to sum of `10,000/- each towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

8.The overall compensation thus comes to `6,70,388/-.

9.The enhanced compensation of `2,75,885/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment. per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.

10.Respondent No.2 Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi within six weeks. deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi within six weeks.

11.10% of the enhanced compensation shall be payable to each of the Appellants No.1 to 5 whereas 25% shall be payable to each of the Appellants No.6 and 7. Appellants No.1 to 5 whereas 25% shall be payable to each of the Appellants No.6 and 7.

12.60% of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for period of three years. Rest shall be released on deposit. period of three years. Rest shall be released on deposit.

13.The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

14.Pending Applications stand disposed of.

SEPTEMBER 3, 2012

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE