Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Smt. Saraswati Negi & Ors. on 12 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th September, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 302/2011
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
SMT. SARASWATI NEGI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R-1 & R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `6,73,000/- awarded for
the death of Smt. Chetna Negi who died in a motor vehicle accident
which occurred on 30.11.2007.
2. A Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the
Act) was preferred by Respondents No.1 and 2 who are the parents-in-
law of the deceased Smt. Chetna Negi, who was aged 25 years at the time
of the accident. A 'No Objection' was given by Chetna Negi's father that
the compensation may be awarded in favour of Respondents No.1 and 2.
3. The Claims Tribunal accepted that the deceased Smt. Chetna Negi was a
housewife. The Claims Tribunal relied on Mathura Dutt & Ors. v. DTC
& Anr. 115 (2004) DLT 567; Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Shamsher Singh & Ors. 1 (2004) ACC 209 (J&K); Lata Wadhwa & Ors.
v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 197 and Sarla Verma (Smt.) &
Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 to take
the value of the gratuitous services rendered by the deceased to be
`3,000/- per month and granted compensation of `6,48,000/- towards the
loss of dependency.
4. The award of compensation in case of housewife is settled by 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. The deceased was a Matriculate and thus the minimum wages of a
Matriculate is to be taken into consideration to award loss of dependency.
6. The question that falls for consideration is what would be the gratuitous
services rendered to the parents-in-law?.
7. The major part of the services rendered by a housewife would be towards
her husband and the children. Of course, the housewife as a daughter-in-
law would also render some gratuitous services to the parents-in-law.
Moreover, in the social context prevalent in the country, mother-in-law
herself would also assist in the household services rendered by the
daughter-in-law. Thus, the value of gratuitous services rendered to the
parents-in-law would be one-third of the total gratuitous services.
8. Thus, applying the principles as laid down in Master Manmeet Singh the
loss of dependency (for gratuitous services) in the context of gratuitous
services to parents-in-law would come to `1,69,379/- (3764/- + 25% x
1/3 x 12 x 9).
9. I would further make a provision of `25,000/- towards loss of love and
affection and `10,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses.
10. The overall compensation thus comes to `2,14,379/- which shall carry
interest @ 8% per annum as granted by the Claims Tribunal.
11. The excess amount of `4,58,621/- along with proportionate interest and
the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be
refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
12. The amount awarded by this Court shall be disbursed in favour of the
Claimants in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
13. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company.
14. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
15. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
vk
