Mohd. Saleem vs Pramod Kumar Kwatra & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 2538 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Decided on: 19th April, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 266/2012

        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

                               JUDGMENT

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 a 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 a 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 a house wife at `3,000/- per

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 a tabulated form as under:-

         1.        Loss of Dependency                                 `3,24,000/-

         2.        Loss of Consortium                                     ` 10,000/-

         3.        Funeral Expenses                                       ` 10,000/-

         4.        Loss of Love & Affection                               ` 25,000/-

                                                  Total             ` 3,69,000/-

4. 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 30th 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,

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

(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 a 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 a housewife shall be:-

(i) Minimum salary of a Graduate where she is a Graduate.

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

(iii) Minimum salary of a 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.

(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.

(vi) If a 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.

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

(viii) As an attempt has been made to compensate the loss of dependency, only a 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 a homemaker is not working and thus not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss of estate."

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

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

6. The minimum wages of a 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).

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/-.

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.

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.

10. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE APRIL 19, 2012 vk