Delhi High Court
Mohd Shahzad vs Emran Ali & Ors on 21 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21st May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 321/2012
MOHD SHAHZAD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Mannie, Adv.
versus
EMRAN ALI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kapoor, Adv. for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `6,83,000/-
awarded for the death of Smt. Razia Khatoon, who died in a
motor accident which occurred on 31.05.2010.
2. By the impugned judgment dated 08.11.2011, the Appellant
who is the deceased's husband was awarded compensation by
valuing the services of a housewife at `3,000/- per month on the
basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa &
Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Appellant is entitled to loss of gratuitous services rendered by a
housewife on the basis of a salary of a non-Matriculate. The
amount towards the value of gratuitous services at `3,000/- was
fixed by the Supreme Court relating to the case where the
accident occurred in the year 1989.
4. 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."
5. Minimum wages of a non-Matriculate on the date of the
accident i.e. 31.05.2010 were `5850/- per month.
6. The deceased died issueless and after making addition of 25%
there would be deduction of 50% in view of Para 34 sub para
(v) and (vi) of the report in Master Manmeet Singh (supra).
7. Hence, applying the above ratio, the loss of dependency comes
to `7,89,750/- (5850/- + 25% x 1/2 x 12 x 18).
8. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `10,000/- towards loss
of love and affection. 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 enhance the compensation under this
head from ` 10,000/- to ` 25,000/-.
9. Thus, the Appellant would be entitled to a sum of `25,000/-
towards loss of love and affection, `10,000/- each towards loss
of consortium and funeral expenses.
10. The overall compensation thus comes to `8,34,750/- (7,89,750/-
+ 45,000/-).
11. The compensation is thus enhanced from `6,83,000/- to
`8,34,750/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit.
12. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount along with interest within six weeks in the
name of Appellant with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New
Delhi. The enhanced amount shall be held in Fixed Deposit for
a period of three years.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 21, 2012/vk
