Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Meenakshi & Ors 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. 1062/2011
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
versus
MEENAKSHI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 654/2012
MEENAKSHI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
versus
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.10149/2012 (Cross Objections)
These are Cross Objections filed by the Claimants in MAC
APP.1062/2011. The application is allowed.
The same be registered as MAC APP.
MAC.APP. 1062/2011 and MAC APP.654/2012
1. These two Cross Appeals (MAC APP.1062/2011 and MAC
APP.654/2012) arise out of a judgment dated 19.07.2011 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)
whereby a compensation of ` 8,00,260/- was awarded for the
death of Smt. Saroj Devi who died in a motor accident which
occurred on 05.07.2008.
2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that
the deceased was engaged in the work of tailoring and knitting
and used to earn `5,000/- per month. In the absence of any
proof of deceased's earning, the Claims Tribunal took the
minimum wages of a skilled worker, added 50% towards the
future prospects to compute the loss of dependency.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company
that the Claims Tribunal erred in taking the income of the
deceased as `4057/- per month. The Claims Tribunal ought to
have decided the case on the basis of the law laid down in Arun
Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. National Insurance Company
Limited., (2010) 9 SCC 218 and Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State
of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197.
4. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for the
Claimants that on rejection of the Appellant's plea that the
deceased was engaged in the tailoring work and was earning
`5,000/- per month, they were entitled to compensation for loss
of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased as a housewife.
5. I would agree with the learned counsel for the Claimants.
6. This Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., MAC.APP. 590/2011, decided
on 30th January, 2012 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 principles 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. Thus, applying the ratio in Master Manmeet Singh (supra), the
loss of dependency comes to ` 8,60,850/- (3826/- + 25% x 12 x
15).
8. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `50,000/- 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 `50,000/- to ` 25,000/- only.
9. Further, on adding a sum of `10,000/- towards funeral
expenses, the overall compensation comes to `8,95,850/-
(8,60,850/- + 35,000/-). (Since the deceased Saroj Devi's
husband died in this very accident, no compensation towards
loss of consortium has been awarded).
10. The overall compensation thus enhanced from `8,00,260/- to
`8,60,850/- (including the interim compensation of `50,000/-),
which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the Petition till its deposit.
11. Respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
excess amount along with proportionate interest in the name of
the Claimants in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi
within six weeks.
12. The enhanced compensation of `60,590/- along with the
proportionate interest shall be equally payable to the
Respondents No.1 and 2 (the Claimants).
13. The compensation already deposited shall be released in terms
of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
14. The statutory amount of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company in MAC APP.1062/2011.
15. MAC APP.1062/2011 is dismissed and MAC APP.654/2012
filed by the Claimants is allowed in above terms.
16. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 30, 2012
vk
