Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Jugal Kishore & Ors on 15 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
34$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15th May, 2012.
+ MAC.APP. 217/2012
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
.. Appellant
Through Mr. Rameeza Hakeem and
Mr. Rajat Barar, Advocate
versus
JUGAL KISHORE & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Basaut Gupta, Advocate for
R-1 & R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for deduction of compensation of amount of Rs.
10,41,248/- for the death of Asha Prasad who died in an
accident which occurred on 16th May, 2009.
2. Before the Claims Tribunal it was alleged that the deceased was
a graduate, she was doing the job of tailoring and stitching and
was earning Rs.7000/- per month. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (The Claims Tribunal) did not find any evidence as to
the actual work performed by the deceased and therefore it took
the minimum wages of a graduate, made addition of 50% on
account of inflation to compute the loss of dependency as
Rs.9,01,248/-. The Claims Tribunal added a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral charges, Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and
affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5000/-
towards loss of estate and in total awarded a sum of
Rs.10,41,248/-.
3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant
Insurance Company:-
1. There was no evidence that the deceased was doing
tailoring and stitching work even if it was so minimum
wages of a graduate could not have been taken into
consideration for award of loss of dependency;
II. There was no evidence of future prospects, addition of
50% made by the Claims Tribunal was not justified;
III. Award of compensation of `1,00,000/- towards love and
affection is exorbitant and excessive.
4. I have perused the Trial Court record. There was no cogent
evidence that the deceased was doing work of tailoring and
stitching. Even then the deceased Asha Prasad was a housewife
and therefore the Respondents No.1 and 2 should have been
awarded compensation for loss of services rendered by a
housewife.
5. 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."
6. It is established from the record that the deceased Asha Prasad
was a graduate and was aged 33 years. On the basis of the
principles extracted from Master Manmeet Singh & Others
(Supra) the Court has to take the salary of a graduate and make
an addition of 25% (considering the age). The loss of
dependency comes to `11,26,560/- (4694 + 25 % X 16).
7. Thus the compensation of `10,41,248/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive, rather it
is just and reasonable.
8. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly
dismissed.
9. The award amount shall be released in favour of Respondents.
The compensation awarded shall be disbursed/held in a fixed
deposit in the name of the First Respondent in terms of the
order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
10. The Statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
11. The Appeal is dismissed in above terms. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 15, 2012
pkv
