Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Shakuntala Sharma & Ors. on 29 November, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29th November, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 1184/2012
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv.
versus
SHAKUNTALA SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `4,60,926/- awarded by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of
the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle
accident which occurred on 10.03.2009.
2. In the accident, the First Respondent suffered crush injury on her left leg.
She remained hospitalized in Trauma Centre, LNJP Hospital from
10.03.2009 to 23.09.2009. A Disability Certificate Ex.PW-1/26 was
issued by the Medical Board of the doctors of Pandit Madan Mohan
Malviya Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi declaring her to have suffered
50% impairment in relation to her left lower limb on account of the
stiffness of the knee.
3. The finding on negligence having not been challenged by the Appellant
Insurance Company have attained finality.
4. The only ground of challenge raised by the learned counsel for the
Appellant Insurance Company is that the First Respondent was only a
housewife. She did not suffer any functional disability with regard to the
work carried out by a housewife. My attention is drawn to the testimony
of PW-2 Dr. Jogender Kumar, who stated that the First Respondent shall
not have any difficulty in carrying out any activities while sitting.
5. The Claims Tribunal while awarding compensation towards loss of future
earning capacity granted compensation on the Minimum Wages of an
unskilled worker with 50% loss of earning capacity observing that the
disability suffered by the First Respondent would cause problem to her in
day to day life.
6. A homemaker in her day to day working while carrying out the activities
has to do lot of work while standing and moving from one corner of the
house to the other. The activities also require frequent sitting and getting
up.
7. While granting compensation for loss of gratuitous services by a
housewife in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master
Manmeet Singh & Ors., 2012 ACJ 721, this Court noticed 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."
8. An Appeal being SLP (C) No.19711/2012 filed against the above referred
judgment titled ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v.
Shiv Kumar & Ors., was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order
dated 24.07.2012.
9. The functional disability suffered by the First Respondent cannot be said
to be less than 40%.
10. If the compensation is awarded towards the loss of earning capacity only
to the extent of 40% even the same would come to `3,71,430/- which is
more than the compensation of `3,54,060/- awarded towards Disability
and Loss of earning capacity by the Claims Tribunal.
11. In the circumstances, the overall compensation of ` 4,60,926/- awarded
by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be exorbitant and excessive.
12. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; it is accordingly dismissed.
13. If compensation amount is not deposited in UCO Bank in terms of the
order dated 16.11.2012, let the Appellant deposit the compensation
amount with the Claims Tribunal without any further delay and file a
compliance report within two weeks.
14. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company only if the compensation is deposited with the
Claims Tribunal within two weeks.
15. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 29, 2012
vk
