Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Yadram & Ors. on 28 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28th September, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 1078/2012
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.TD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Rajat Brar, Advocate
versus
YADRAM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate
for R-1 to R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CAVEAT 1013/2012
Learned counsel for the Caveator Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate, has
entered appearance. The Caveat is discharged.
C.M. APPL No.17132/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
MAC APP. No.1078/2012
1. Issue notice to Respondents No.1 to 4.
2. Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondents
No.1 to 4 accepts notice.
3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the Appeal is taken up
for final disposal.
4. The Appellant takes exception to the judgment dated 5 th July,
2012 on the ground that while granting compensation for loss of
gratuitous services rendered by housewife Smt.Rukmani Devi,
wife of the First Respondent and mother of Respondents No.2
to 4, although the Claims Tribunal purported to follow the
judgment of this Court in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors.,
2012 ACJ 721 yet granted non-pecuniary damages not only in
violation of the judgment in Master Manmeet Singh but also the
Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
5. Learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 4 states that the
compensation may be awarded in accordance with the
principles laid down in Master Manmeet Singh.
6. It may be noticed that in Sarla Verma, the Supreme Court laid
down that a compensation of `5,000/- to `10,000/- each should
be awarded towards loss to estate and loss to consortium. The
Claims Tribunal went on to award a compensation of
`1,00,000/- towards loss to estate and `50,000/- towards loss to
consortium.
7. It has to be borne in mind that when a compensation is awarded
for loss of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife, the
housewife is not earning anything and the dependents is
compensated for the services rendered by a woman as a mother
and as a wife. This aspect was dealt with by this Court in the
case of Master Manmeet Singh, and it was laid down that no
compensation will be awarded towards loss to estate.
8. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of `2,00,000/-
towards loss of love and affection and `1,00,000/- towards loss
of care and attention. Normally a nominal sum of `25,000/- is
awarded under the head of loss of love and affection. [(Sunil
Sharma v. Bachitar Singh, (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby
Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2009)
17 SCC 627].
9. There was no justification for granting a sum of `1,00,000/-
towards loss of care and attention as the entire sum for death of
the housewife was granted towards loss of care and attention
and services rendered by her. The order passed by the Claims
Tribunal shows that the compensation awarded is not just and
reasonable; the impugned order is set aside and the
compensation is to be awarded on the principles laid down in
Master Manmeet Singh.
10. There was no evidence with regard to the deceased
Smt.Rukmani Devi's qualification; thus, Respondents No.1 to 4
have to be granted compensation on the basis of the minimum
salary of a non-matriculate. There would be an addition of 15%
as the deceased was aged 45 years. The loss of gratuitous
services thus comes to `11,30,220/-(5850+15% x 12 x 14).
11. Respondents No.1 to 4 are further entitled to a sum of `25,000/-
towards loss of love and affection and `10,000/- each towards
loss of funeral expenses and loss of consortium.
12. The overall compensation thus comes to `11,75,220/- which
shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of
the Petition till its payment.
13. The compensation shall be equally proportioned among the four
Claimants (Respondents No.1 to 4). The compensation payable
to Respondents No.2 to 4 shall be held in fixed deposit in a
nationalized Bank till they attained the age of 21 years.
14. The Respondents(Claimants) shall be entitled to premature
release of the amount in case the same is needed for their higher
education.
15. Fifty percent of the compensation payable to the First
Respondent shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two
years. Rest shall be released on deposit.
16. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation as awarded with the Claims Tribunal within four
weeks.
17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
18. CM APPL. 17131/2012 stands dismissed in view of the final
disposal of the Appeal.
19. Statutory amount of `25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company
20. Order dasti.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 28, 2012
v
