Delhi High Court
Sandeep Tomar & Anr. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 25 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17th May, 2012
Pronounced on: 25th May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 53/2010
SANDEEP TOMAR & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anil Gera, Adv. with
Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Paul, Adv. with
Ms. Mohita Bagai, Adv. for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 5,71,000/-
awarded for the death of Smt. Rita Tomar who died in a motor
accident which occurred on 30.12.2003.
2. Along with Rita Tomar her husband Satyabir Singh Tomar, her
daughter Shivani Tomar and parents-in-law also died in this
very accident.
3. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) on the basis of the Income Tax Return (ITR) it
was established that she (the deceased) had an income of
`7,000/- per month.
4. The deceased was survived by two sons i.e. the Appellants
herein who were aged 21 years and 18 years respectively.
5. It is a matter of record that the deceased and the Appellants
belong to an affluent family. Appellants' father Satyabir Singh
Tomar had returned an income of `94,48,480/- in the
Assessment Year 2004-05. (Page 37, Para 40 of the impugned
judgment).
6. While dealing with the loss of financial dependency, the Claims
Tribunal observed as under:-
"32. Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company stated
that the petitioners being sons of the deceased were not
dependent on her as petitioner no.1, Sh. Sandeep Tomar
is the eldest child and the parents of the deceased were
earning very handsome amount per month and therefore,
there was no question of financial dependence on the
mother of the deceased.
However, mothers are those blessings of God who not
only give birth but they look after their children
throughout their life whatever be their age. The
household work that they do, the other services that they
render to the house cannot be assessed in terms of
money. That assessment apart which the deceased
mother of the petitioners must be rendering to the
petitioners, she was also an earning hand though as it
may that her husband was a rich man and was earning in
crores. She herself was earning as per her income-tax
return being self employed. It is not uncommon for a
wife to earn whatever be her capability despite her
husband earning very well. Even if the petitioners were
not financially dependent on her being major, the
deceased was rendering services which a housewife does.
Therefore, in this case, under these special
circumstances, I will assess the loss of dependency on the
mother considering her to be a housewife and her
contribution towards the family as a homemaker as has
been deposed by petitioner no.1....."
7. The Claims Tribunal did not advert to the aspect of deceased's
income and simply granted compensation on the basis of loss of
gratuitous services rendered to the Appellants by the deceased
mother. Although, the details of the deceased's retail business
could not be brought on record, yet the meager income of
`7,000/- per month as per the ITR ought to have been believed
by the Claims Tribunal.
8. Obviously, when the Appellants' father had such a high income,
they were not financially dependent on the mother. Yet, the
surplus income (of the mother) would come to Appellants'
hands as loss to estate.
9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I would take
50% of the deceased's income as savings coming to the hands
of the Appellants as loss to estate. There was a liability of about
`5,000/- towards the payment of income tax. The loss to estate
would come to `5,53,000/- (7,000/- x 12 - 5000/- (income tax)
x 1/2 x 14).
10. The Appellants claimed that their deceased mother Smt. Rita
Tomar apart from carrying out her enterprises was taking care
and looking after her family also. This part of Sandeep Tomar's
testimony was not challenged in cross-examination. I have
already held above that the deceased was self employed and
was an income tax assessee. Still she was rendering gratuitous
services to the family, of which the Appellants were deprived of
on her death. The gratuitous services rendered by a working
wife and a mother would be considerably reduced when they
spent most of their time on their profession/enterprise.
11. In the circumstances, I would award a lumpsum compensation
of `1,00,000/- towards loss of gratuitous services rendered by
the deceased Smt. Rita Tomar.
12. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `50,000/- towards loss
of love and affection. Trend of the superior Courts is to grant a
compensation of `25,000/- under this head. In this case, the
Appellants lost not only both their parents but also their only
sister and grandmother as well. In the peculiar circumstances of
the case, I would not interfere with the award of compensation
of `50,000/- towards loss of love and affection.
13. The compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder:-
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by
various heads this Court
No.
1. Loss of Love & Affection `50,000/-
2. Funeral Expenses ` 7,000/-
3. Loss to Estate ` 5,53,000/-
4. Gratuitous Services ` 1,00,000/-
Total ` 7,10,000/-
14. The compensation is thus enhanced from `5,71,000/- to
`7,10,000/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit.
15. Respondent No.1 Oriental Insurance Company Limited is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of `1,39,000/-
along with interest within six weeks in the name of Appellants
with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi.
16. On deposit, the compensation shall be held/released in favour of
the Appellants as per the Claims Tribunal's order.
17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 25, 2012
vk
