United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ashok & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1367 Del

35
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +    MAC.APP. 354/2006

                               Date of Decision: 13th April, 2009
%

      UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD       ..... Appellant
                     Through : Mr. H.C. Mittal, Mr. Ankur
                               Mittal and Mr. Pranab Jha,
                               Advs.

                    versus

      ASHOK & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                        Through :   Mr. Suraj Bhan, Adv. for R-1.


CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may              No
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?             No

3.      Whether the judgment should be                     No
        reported in the Digest?

                        JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.5,39,000/- has been

awarded to respondent No.1.

2. The accident dated 1st March, 2004 resulted in the

death of Santosh aged 26 years. The deceased was survived

by her husband who filed the claim petition before the

learned Tribunal. It was stated in the petition that the

deceased was self-employed in the job of stitching and

sewing work and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month.

3. The claimant/respondent No.1 appeared in the witness

box as PW--1 and stated that his wife was doing the work of

Rakhi manufacturing and was also doing stitching and

sewing work and was earning Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per

month.

4. The learned Tribunal held that evidence was not

sufficient to prove the income of the deceased and,

therefore, the deceased was taken to be a housewife. The

learned Tribunal took the value of the services rendered by

the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- following the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa vs. State of

Bihar, 2001 ACJ 1735. The learned Tribunal applied the

multiplier of 14 to compute the loss of dependency at

Rs.5,04,000/-. Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards loss of

expectancy of life of the deceased, Rs.10,000/- towards loss

of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of

consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The

total compensation awarded is Rs.5,39,000/-.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that

Rs.15,000/- per annum should be taken to be the value of the

services of the deceased according to the Second Schedule

of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel further

submits that in the case of Lata Wadhwa (Supra), the

Apex Court had taken the value of the services of the

deceased to be Rs.3,000/- in the peculiar facts of that case

and, therefore, in the present case, the lower amount should

be taken towards the value of the services of the deceased.

The second ground raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant is that the lower multiplier should be applied in the

present case.

6. There is no infirmity in the finding of the learned

Tribunal with respect to the value of the services of the

deceased following the judgment of Apex Court in the case of

Lata Wadhwa (Supra) in which the Apex Court held as

under:-

"11. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs. 12,000/- per annum in cases of some and Rs. 10,000/- for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration, the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore should be re- calculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs. 36,000/- and thereafter applying the multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/- given under the Report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the

age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs. 10,000/- per annum and multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applies is correct, but the values of services rendered at Rs. 10,000/- per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs. 20,000/- per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be re-determined, taking the value of services rendered at Rs. 20,000/- per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter adding Rs. 50,000/- towards the conventional figure."

7. There is another aspect of this matter. The

claimant/respondent No.1 appeared in witness box and

deposed that the deceased was doing the job of stitching and

sewing work and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Since

there was no corroboration to the statement of the

claimant/respondent No.1 with respect to the income of the

deceased, the minimum wages can be taken into

consideration to compute the loss of dependency. The

minimum wages at the time of the accident were

approximately Rs.3,000/- per month and considering the

increase in minimum wages due to inflation and price index,

the average income of the deceased can be computed by

taking the average of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.6,000/- which comes

to Rs.4,500/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards

personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency

comes to Rs.3,000/- per month. The computation of loss of

dependency on this basis comes to the same amount as

taken by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the value of the

services of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has taken

Rs.3,000/- per month as loss of dependency. This shows that

the compensation computed by the learned Tribunal is just,

fair and reasonable.

8. With respect to the multiplier, the learned Tribunal

adopted the multiplier of 14 considering that the deceased

was aged 26 years and was survived by her husband who

was aged 35 years at the time of the accident. Although the

Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for the

multiplier of 17, the learned Tribunal has applied the

multiplier of 14 which is fair and reasonable in the facts of

this case and does not call for any interference.

9. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards

funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and

affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life of the

deceased. There is no provision for awarding separate

compensation for loss of expectancy of life of the deceased.

However, since the compensation awarded towards loss of

love and affection and loss of consortium is on a lower side,

the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of

expectancy of life is treated as compensation towards loss of

consortium. The award does not call for any interference in

appeal.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

11. No costs.

J.R. MIDHA, J

APRIL 13, 2009 aj