Delhi High Court
Ranvir Singh @ Ranbir Singh vs Ram Kumar & Ors on 21 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 21st March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 205/2012
RANVIR SINGH @ RANBIR SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kamra, Advocate
versus
RAM KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.K. Seth, Adv. for
R-3/NICL.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellants seek enhancement of compensation of `
4,21,000/- awarded for the death of Sunehari Devi, who was
aged about 52 years and died in a motor accident which
occurred on 26.06.2009.
2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased was a
homemaker, well conversant in housekeeping; the value of the
gratuitous services rendered by her was ` 10,000/- per month.
3. The Claims Tribunal following Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of
Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197, took the value of the services
to be ` 3,000/- per month and computed the loss of dependency
as ` 3,96,000/-.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that Lata
Wadhwa (supra) was decided in the year 2001. The value of
services assessed at ` 3,000/- per month in the year 2009 was
very low.
5. The Appeal 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."
6. It is admitted that the deceased was not having any educational
qualification. The Appellants were, therefore, entitled to the
compensation on the scale of minimum wages of a Non-
Matriculate.
7. On applying the ratio of Master Manmeet Singh (supra), the
loss of dependency comes to ` 5,44,764/- (4127/- x 12 x 11).
8. The compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary heads also
needs to be raised. No compensation under the head of loss of
love and affection was awarded by the Claims Tribunal. As loss
of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money.
Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting
non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v.
Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta
v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627
granted ` 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head
of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would award a sum of `
25,000/- under this head.
9. The overall compensation is re-assessed as under:-
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by Awarded by
various heads the Claims this Court
No. Tribunal
1. Loss of Dependency `3,96,000/- `5,44,764/-
2. Loss of Love & Affection -- ` 25,000/-
3. Loss to Estate ` 10,000/- ` 10,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses ` 5,000/- ` 10,000/-
5. Loss of Consortium ` 10,000/- ` 10,000/-
Total ` 4,21,000/- ` 5,99,764/-
10. The compensation is enhanced from `4,21,000/- to ` 5,99,764/-.
The enhanced amount of ` 1,78,764/- shall carry interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the
date of payment.
11. Respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Limited is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with upto date
interest within 30 days with the Registrar General of this Court.
12. The enhanced amount shall be distributed amongst the
Appellants in the same proportion as ordered by the Claims
Tribunal.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
14. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 21, 2012
vk
