Delhi High Court
Sriram General Insurance Company ... vs Prabhu & Ors. on 4 December, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th December, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 252/2012
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. with
Ms. Shivani Bansal, Adv.
versus
PRABHU & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv. for R-1 to R-5.
Mr. S.K. Raut, Adv. for R-6 & R-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `13,31,000/- awarded by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of
the Respondents No.1 to 5 who are the legal representatives of deceased
Saroj, who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
18.01.2011.
2. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance
Company; thus the same has attained finality.
3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that apart from
carrying out the household work the deceased was working as a maid
servant and was earning `7,000/- per month.
4. In the absence of any evidence with regard to deceased's income the
Claims Tribunal took `6,000/- (stating to be the minimum wages of
skilled worker at the time of the accident) as her income, deducted one-
fourth towards personal and living expenses, added 50% towards inflation
and applied the multiplier of 16 to compute the loss of dependency as
`12,96,000/-.
5. The Claims Tribunal further awarded `10,000/- each towards loss of
consortium, loss to estate and love and affection and `5,000/- as funeral
expenses.
6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the minimum
wages of a skilled worker at the time of the accident were `5278/- per
month. The Claimants failed to adduce any evidence that the deceased
was working as a maid servant. The legal representatives thus, could have
been granted compensation on the basis of only loss of gratuitous services
rendered by the deceased as a housewife.
7. Learned Counsel for the Claimants states that he has no objection if the
compensation is awarded towards loss of gratuitous services rendered by
the deceased as a home maker.
8. Otherwise also, in the absence of any evidence with regard to deceased's
income the Claims Tribunal ought to have granted compensation on
account of loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased.
9. In Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh
& Ors., 2012 ACJ 721, 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."
10. An Appeal being SLP (C) No.19711/2012 filed against the above referred
judgment titled ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v.
Shiv Kumar & Ors., was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order
dated 24.07.2012.
11. The minimum wages of a non Matriculate at the time of the accident were
`5850/-.
12. The loss gratuitous services rendered by her as a housewife, would come
to `14,04,000/- (5850/- + 25% x 12 x 16).
13. Thus, the compensation of `13,31,000/- awarded in favour of the
Respondents (the Claimants) cannot be said to be exorbitant and
excessive.
14. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.
15. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company.
16. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 04, 2012
vk
