Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Compandy ... vs Davinder @ Devinder Singh & Ors. on 17 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th August, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 881/2012
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANDY LTD...... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K.De, Adv with
Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi, Adv.
versus
DAVINDER @ DEVINDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.13993/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The Application is allowed.
MAC. APP. 881/2012
1. The Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 15.05.2012 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a
compensation of `11,04,568/- was awarded for the death of Smt. Suresh
Devi, a housewife aged 46 years, in a motor vehicle accident which took
place on 23.08.2010.
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company
that some of the deceased's legal representatives were grown up and that
the question of award of compensation was not rightly addressed in the
case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Manmeet
Singh & Ors. MAC. APP. 590/2011, decided on 30.01.2012.
3. I would not agree.
4. In Master Manmeet Singh this Court noticed 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. An SLP being SLP (C) No.19711/2012 filed against the above referred
judgment in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Shiv
Kumar & Ors., was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated
24.07.2012.
6. The compensation awarded is in consonance with the principles laid
down in Master Manmeet Singh does not call for any interference.
7. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.
8. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
9. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 17, 2012
vk
