Delhi High Court
Siheshwar Mahto & Ors. vs Silakant Jha & Orss on 30 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 364/2012
SIHESHWAR MAHTO & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. F.K. Jha, Advocate
versus
SILAKANT JHA & ORSs ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, 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 `7,82,000/-
awarded for the death of Smt. Sheela Devi, who died in a motor
accident which occurred on 10.03.2010.
2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased was a self
employed person and was earning `10,000/- per month.
3. In the absence of any proof of deceased's income, the Claims
Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as `3,000/-,
adopted the multiplier of '17' as per the deceased's age (28
years) and computed the loss of dependency as `6,12,000/-.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the
Appellants were entitled to loss of dependency in case of a
housewife on the basis of a salary of a non-Matriculate.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, learned counsel for
the Respondent Insurance Company urges that the deceased was
claimed to be aged 34 years in the Claim Petition. Even as per
the Ration Card, her age was 34 years. In the circumstances,
the deceased's age should have been taken as 34 years instead
of 28 years (as per the postmortem examination report). It is
stated that the compensation of `1,00,000/- awarded towards
loss of love and affection is on the higher side.
6. 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."
7. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that there is
no evidence as to the deceased's educational qualification.
Thus, value of the services rendered by her has to be taken as
the salary of a non-Matriculate as per the Minimum Wages Act.
8. Minimum wages of a non-Matriculate on the date of the
accident i.e. 10.03.2010 were ` 5850/-. Hence, applying the
above ratio, the loss of dependency comes to ` 14,04,000/-
(5850/- + 25% x 12 x 16).
9. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `1,00,000/- 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 only ` 25,000/-
(in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and
affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this
head from ` 1,00,000/- to ` 25,000/- only.
10. The Appellants were entitled to a sum of `10,000/- each
towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The overall
compensation thus comes to ` 14,49,000/- (14,04,000/- +
45,000/-) (including the interim compensation, if any).
11. The compensation is thus enhanced from `7,82,000/- to
`14,49,000/- 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 fixed
deposit in the name of Appellants with UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court, New Delhi.
13. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be equally
apportioned in favour of Appellants No.1 to 3. The amount
payable to Appellants No.2 and 3 shall be held in fixed deposit
for a period till they attain the age of 21 years.
14. 50% of the compensation payable to the First Appellant shall be
held in fixed deposit for a period of three years. Rest of the
amount shall be released to him immediately on deposit.
15. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 30, 2012
vk
