Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Krishan Pal & Ors. on 14 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:14th May, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.424/2011
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Ms.K.L. Nandwani, Advocate
Versus
KRISHAN PAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate for
the Respondents No.5 & 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Insurance Company impugns a judgment dated
31.01.2011 whereby a compensation of `9,03,000/- was
awarded for the death of Smt. Savitri who died in an accident
which occurred on 17.10.2009.
2. The Appellant's grievance is that it was not given opportunity
to prove that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence
and that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive.
3. The application for additional evidence filed by the Appellant
Insurance Company was dismissed by an order dated
07.02.2012 wherein it was held that sufficient opportunity was
granted to the Appellant Insurance Company to prove its
defence. Since no evidence was produced by the Insurance
Company to prove that the Respondent No.5 (Joginder) the
driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any valid driving
licence on the date of the accident, the Appellant Insurance
Company having failed to discharge the onus, cannot avoid its
liability to indemnify the insured.
4. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Claims
Tribunal opined that no evidence was produced to prove that the
deceased was engaged in the work of knitting and tailoring. It
was, however, held that the value of the gratuitous services
rendered by the deceased cannot be ignored. It, therefore, took
the minimum wages of a skilled worker, added 50% on account
of inflation, deducted 1/4th towards the personal and living
expenses and applied a multiplier of 13 and calculated the loss
of dependency as `7,73,000/-. The Claims Tribunal added a
sum of `1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection in
addition to `10,000/- each on account of funeral expenses, loss
to estate and loss of consortium.
5. The assessment of the value of the gratuitous services rendered
by a housewife 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. No evidence was produced by the Claimants to prove the
educational qualification of the deceased. Thus, the minimum
wages of a non-matriculate which on the date of the accident
was `4,146/- are to be taken into consideration to compute the
loss of dependency and an addition of 15% is to be made as the
deceased was aged 47 years. Thus, the loss of dependency
comes to `7,43,792/-(`4146 + 15% X 12 X 13).
7. The 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)
only under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would
reduce the compensation under this head to ` 25,000/- only.
8. The overall compensation is reassessed as under:-
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by Awarded by
various heads the Claims this Court
No. Tribunal
1. Loss of Dependency `7,73,000/- `7,43,792/-
2. Loss to Estate ` 10,000/- -
3. Loss of Consortium ` 10,000/- ` 10,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses ` 10,000/- ` 10,000/-
5. Loss of Love & Affection ` 1,00,000/- ` 25,000/-
Total ` 9,03,000/- ` 7,88,792/-
9. The compensation thus stands reduced from `9,03,000/-to
`7,88,792/-.
10. It was urged that the interest on the award amount granted @
9% was excessive and exorbitant. The contention raised is
totally misconceived. Normally, the Claims Tribunal and the
Courts in Motor Accident Claims cases grant interest as per the
bank rate of interest on long-term fixed deposits prevalent at the
time of the accident. This accident took place in the year 2009
and the Claim Petition came to be decided in the year 2011.
During this period, the rate of interest on long-term deposits
were in the vicinity of 8 to 9% per annum. Thus, the Claims
Tribunal was justified in granting the interest @ 9% per annum.
Thus, it cannot be said to be exorbitant and excessive.
11. The excess amount of `1,14,208/- along with proportionate
interest and the interest, if any, accrued during the pendency of
the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company.
12. The amount of compensation along with interest as held payable
by this Court shall be released/held in Fixed Deposit in favour
of the Respondents (Claimants) in terms of the order passed by
the Claims Tribunal.
13. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be returned to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
14. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 14, 2012
pst
