Delhi High Court
Arun Srivastava & Ors vs Sanjay & Ors on 17 February, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th February, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 747/2011
ARUN SRIVASTAVA & ORS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Adv.
versus
SANJAY & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
C.M. APPL.15558/2011 (delay)
There is a delay of 145 days in filing the Appeal. For the
reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of
145 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 747/2011
1. This Appeal relates to the death of Prabha Srivastava, a
housewife who was aged about 51 years on the date of the
accident which took place on 12.08.2007. The deceased
succumbed to the injuries on 24.08.2007.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (the Claims Tribunal)
attempted to follow the second schedule, noticed Arun Kumar
Aggarwal v. National Insurance Company, JT 2010 (7) SC 304;
accepted the income of the deceased's husband as ` 23,626/-
took the notional income of the deceased as ` 5,000/- deducted
1/3rd towards personal and living expenses to calculate the loss
of dependency. After adding a sum of ` 3,87,113/- spent on
treatment and notional sum under conventional head
compensation of ` 8,52,113/- was granted.
3. 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."
4. There is no evidence with regard to the educational qualification
of the deceased. Thus, I shall take the value of gratuitous
services rendered by the deceased to be of a non Matriculate.
Following the principles as laid down by this Court in Master
Manmeet Singh (supra) the loss of dependency comes to `
5,11,632/- {3876/- (salary of non matriculate on the date of the
accident) x 12 x 11).
5. The overall compensation is tabulated as under:-
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by Awarded by
various heads the Claims this Court
No. Tribunal
1. Loss of Dependency `4,40,000/- `5,11,632/-
2. Expenditure on treatment ` 3,87,113/- ` 3,87,113/-
2. Funeral Expenses ` 5,000/- ` 10,000/-
3. Loss of Consortium ` 10,000/- ` 10,000/-
4. Loss of Love & Affection -- ` 25,000/-
5. Loss to Estate ` 10,000/- ` 10,000/-
Total ` 8,52,113/- ` 9,53,745/-
6. The compensation is enhanced from `8,52,113/- to ` 9,53,745/-.
The enhanced amount of ` 1,01,632/- shall carry interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the
date of payment.
7. Respondent No.3 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with upto date
interest within 30 days with Registrar General of this Court.
The same shall be released in favour of the first Appellant
immediately on deposit.
8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
9. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 17, 2012
vk
