National Insurance Co Ltd vs Talat Shahedi & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1947 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Decided on: 21st March, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 33/2011

        NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD       ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate

                    versus

        TALAT SHAHEDI & ORS                      ..... Respondents
                    Through:          Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
                                      Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant National Insurance Company Limited seeks reduction of the compensation of ` 10,01,560/- awarded for the death of Shahedi Parveen who died in a motor accident which occurred on 24.08.2005.

2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased was a housewife. The Claims Tribunal while referring to Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Limited., (2010) 9 SCC 218, took one-third of the income of the deceased's husband to be the notional income of the deceased and awarded a compensation of ` 10,01,560/- which can be

extracted in a tabulated form as under:-

1. Loss of Dependency `9,31,560/-

2. On account of Love and affection ` 40,000/-

         3.       Loss of Estate                                         ` 10,000/-

         4.       Funeral Expenses                                       ` 10,000/-

         5.       Loss of Consortium                                     ` 10,000/-

                                                 Total         ` 10,01,5600/-

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. The deceased in this case was a Matriculate. The salary of a Matriculate on 24.08.2005 i.e. the date of the accident was ` 3613/-. She was aged 42 years and the Respondents No.1 to 3 (the Claimants) were entitled to an increase of 15% in the assumed salary on the principle extracted above.

5. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to ` 6,98,031/- (3613/- + 15% x 12 x 14).

6. On awarding a notional sum of ` 25,000/- towards love and affection and ` 10,000/- each towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the overall compensation comes to ` 7,43,031/-.

7. The compensation is reduced from `10,01,560/- to ` 7,43,031/-.

8. The excess amount of ` 2,58,529/- alongwith the proportionate interest and the interest if any, accrued during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

9. Statutory amount shall also be refunded.

10. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 21, 2012 vk