Delhi High Court
Bhopal Singh & Ors. vs Nu-Tech Security Printers on 7 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 7th August, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.182/2006
BHOPAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
Versus
NU-TECH SECURITY PRINTERS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.B. Shami, Advocate for the
Respondent No.2 Insurance Company
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,80,000/-
awarded for the death of Smt. Maya Devi by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred
on 26.04.2001.
2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the
deceased aged 44 years was running a vegetable shop and earning
Rs.4,500/- per month. The Claims Tribunal declined to believe the
Appellant's case that the deceased Maya Devi was a self-employed
person. The Claims Tribunal, on the other hand, opined that the deceased
was a housewife. Relying on Lata Wadhwa & Ors. State of Bihar & Ors.,
(2001) 8 SCC 197, took the value of the gratuitous services rendered by
the deceased as Rs.3,000/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living
expenses and applied a multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of
dependency as Rs.3,60,000/-. After adding a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards
the non-pecuniary damages an overall compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- was
awarded.
3. The case is squarely covered by a 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."
4. The minimum wages of a non-matriculate on the date of the accident
were Rs.2772/-. Applying the ratio of Master Manmeet, the loss of
dependency comes to Rs.5,35,550/-(Rs.2772 + 15% x 12 x 14).
5. On adding a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and a
sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards
loss of consortium, the overall compensation comes to Rs.5,80,550/-.
6. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.2,00,550/- which shall carry interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the Petition till its
payment. The enhanced compensation shall be equally apportioned
amongst the Appellants. 50% of the enhanced compensation shall be
held Fixed Deposit for a period of two years and rest shall be released on
deposit.
7. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be deposited with
the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.
8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
9. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 07, 2012
pst
