Delhi High Court
Iftkhar vs Anesthetic Gases (P.) Ltd on 3 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd September, 2012
+ MAC APP. 132/2008
IFTKHAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N.Parashar, Adv.
versus
ANESTHETIC GASES (P.) LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K.Soni, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `3,94,503/- awarded
for the death of Smt. Sabra Begum, who died in a motor vehicle accident
which occurred on 26.06.2005.
2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) it was claimed that apart from looking after household work,
the deceased was doing tailoring and stitching work. The Claims Tribunal
disbelieved that the deceased was in gainful employment and took
minimum wages of an unskilled worker to award the loss of dependency
for the gratuitous services rendered by the deceased as a housewife.
3. It is urged that the compensation awarded is very low and meager.
4. 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."
5. 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.
6. Thus, following Master Manmeet Singh the loss of dependency comes to
` 6,25,388/- (3237/- + 15% x 12 x 14).
7. I would enhance the compensation towards loss of love and affection to `
25,000/-. The Appellant would be further entitled to a sum of `10,000/-
each towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
8. The overall compensation thus comes to `6,70,388/-.
9. The enhanced compensation of `2,75,885/- shall carry interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.
10. Respondent No.2 Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest with UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi within six weeks.
11. 10% of the enhanced compensation shall be payable to each of the
Appellants No.1 to 5 whereas 25% shall be payable to each of the
Appellants No.6 and 7.
12. 60% of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for a
period of three years. Rest shall be released on deposit.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
14. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2012
vk
