Delhi High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ... vs Jung Bahadur Singh & Ors. on 2 November, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 2nd November, 2012
+ CM (M) 1470/2010
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Dilip Raghuvanshi, Adv.
Versus
JUNG BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited
impugns a judgment dated 27.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of
`8,67,000/- was awarded for the death of Smt. Shyamo Devi who died in
a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 15.01.2009.
2. The Trial Court referred to Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.,
(2001) 8 SCC 197 where the value of gratuitous services rendered by the
housewife was taken as `3,000/- per month, doubled it on the ground that
the case pertains to the year 2009, and applied the multiplier of 11 to
compute the loss of dependency as `7,92,000/-.
3. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of `50,000/- towards loss of
love and affection, `10,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss to
estate and `5,000/- towards funeral expenses, to compute the overall
compensation of `8,67,000/-.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the compensation
awarded is exorbitant and excessive.
5. This case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., 2012 ACJ
721. 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 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 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. An Appeal being SLP (C) No.19711/2012 filed against the above referred
judgment as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Shiv
Kumar & Ors., was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated
24.07.2012.
7. Applying Master Manmeet Singh the loss of dependency comes to `
5,11,632/- (3876/- x 12 x 11).
8. The Claimants are further entitled to a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of
love & affection, `10,000/- towards loss of consortium and `5,000/-
towards funeral expenses. The overall compensation comes to
`5,51,632/-.
9. The compensation is reduced from `8,67,000/- to ` 5,51,632/- (including
the interim compensation of `50,000/-).
10. The excess amount of `3,15,368/- along with proportionate interest and
the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be
refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
11. The compensation awarded shall be released/held in fixed deposit in
terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
12. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
14. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 02, 2012
vk
