Anirudh & Ors. vs Anil Kumar & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5818 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of decision: 27th September, 2012
+        MAC. APP. 74/2012

         ANIRUDH & ORS.                             ...... Appellants
                      Through:          Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.

                                      versus

         ANIL KUMAR & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                      Through           Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for R-3.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `6,14,568/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Smt. Radha, a housewife, who died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 21.08.2010.

2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the compensation awarded is very meager. The value of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife has not been assessed in the proper prospective, particularly, in view of the fact that this accident took place on 21.08.2010.

3. 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.

4. In Master Manmeet Singh 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."

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. Ex.PW-1/28 shows that the deceased was a Matriculate. She was born on 10.04.1970. Thus, she was aged 40 years and four months on the date of the accident. Since the deceased was aged 40 years and four months on the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier shall be 15 instead of 14 as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.

7. Applying the principle as laid down in Master Manmeet Singh, the loss of gratuitous services rendered to the parents would come to `13,34,736/- (6448/- + 15% x 12 x 15).

8. On adding a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, `10,000/- towards loss of consortium, `10,000/- as funeral expenses and `55,568/- towards treatment as granted by the Claims Tribunal, the overall compensation thus comes to `14,35,304/-

9. The enhanced compensation of `8,20,736/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its deposit.

10. Respondent No.3 HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.

11. The compensation along with interest shall be payable to the Appellants in equal proportion and shall be held in fixed deposit/released in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

13. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 vk