Delhi High Court
Smt.Machala & Ors. vs Manoj Kumar & Ors. on 10 February, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10th February 2014
+ MAC.APP. 675/2013
SMT.MACHALA & ORS. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Jatinder Kamra,
Advocate.
Versus
MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Suman Bagga,
Ms.Shruti Shukla and
Mr.Dewashish Maharishi,
Advocate for Respondent
No.3/Insurance Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award
dated 15.12.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted
compensation for a sum of Rs.10,66,004/- with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization
of the amount.
2. Vide the present appeal, the appellants are seeking enhancement
of the award amount as noted above.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants
has argued that PW1Smt.Machala Devi, wife of the deceased has stated
in her evidence by way of affidavit that besides being an earning
member of the family, the deceased used to provide services for smooth
running of the house, such as bringing day-to-day grocery, paying utility
bills, general superintendence, maintaining discipline in the family,
guiding and escorting the minor children and dependants from time to
time. Such notional services were germane to the family and the
claimants are feeling the dearth of those services after the demise of Shri
Chanderpal.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that voluntary household and
other services provided by the deceased to the appellants/claimants had a
notional value. Even on a conservative note, value of such services were
not less than Rs.10,000/- per month. While awarding compensation, the
learned Tribunal ought to have considered the economic factors and the
depreciating value of rupees to make the award just and proper.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that PW1, wife of the deceased
has not re-married and is undergoing loss of consortium. The
appellants/claimants should be compensated for pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages as per the law such as for loss of estate, loss of love
and affection, loss of consortium etc. All the appellants are suffering
from loss of love and affection, loss of security etc. as the deceased used
to devote valuable time at home for appropriate upbringing of the
children.
6. Learned counsel submitted that for the last rites and customs, the
appellants/claimants have spent about Rs.25,000/-, however, the learned
Tribunal has granted only Rs.5,000/- towards the same. Compensation
granted towards love and affection Rs.25,000/-, and Rs.10,000/- each for
loss of estate and loss of consortium is also on a very lower side.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.3/Insurance Company has submitted that every head of
the family provides services to the family and for the gratuitous services
compensation can be granted only when such person is not earning
anything but only taking care of the household affairs. He submitted
that if a housewife is taking care of the children and maintaining the
household affairs, then she is entitled for getting compensation.
However, in the present case, the appellants/claimants have been
compensated for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, therefore, they
are not entitled for any additional amount on this ground.
8. Moreover, learned counsel submitted that PW1, Smt.Machala
Devi, wife of the deceased has stated in her evidence by way of affidavit
only. Neither any witness has been examined nor any material placed on
record in support of her testimony.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have fairly
conceded that this issue has never been raised before this Court earlier,
therefore, there is no precedent qua this issue.
11. It is true that when head of the family dies on attaining of his good
age or due to some disease or prolonged illness, as the case may be, next
or some other member of the family takes the command of the house
immediately. In that situation, the family of such person makes up its
mind, accordingly.
12. But, in the present case, deceased Chanderpal died in a road traffic
accident, which was a sudden demise and the family was not prepared
either mentally, emotionally or financially to take up the task which the
deceased used to take care of before his death.
13. PW1, wife of the deceased was not cross-examined on this issue,
therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not providing any
services for smooth running of the house such as taking care of day-to-
day affairs of the family, superintending and helping discipline in family
and guiding and escorting the minor children and dependents from time
to time. However, the services which the deceased used to provide to the
family cannot be compensated in terms of money, but for awarding just
and proper compensation, the Tribunals and the Courts have to see the
role played by the deceased before his death.
14. In the present case, the appellants/claimants have claimed that
deceased was working as a floweriest and earning Rs.8,000/- per month.
However, since the same could not be proved by leading cogent
evidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income
of the deceased as Rs.6656/- as per the minimum wages applicable to an
unskilled person.
15. Keeping in mind the evidence on record, the unrebutted testimony
of PW1, I grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss of services rendered by the
deceased.
16. So far as the issue of non-pecuniary damages is concerned, the
compensation of Rs.25,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal on account
of love and affection is on a very lower side.
17. Recently, in the case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and
Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court has
granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection,
Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- for funeral
expenses.
18. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme
Court and the number of dependants, I enhance the compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- for love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of
consortium and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses.
19. Consequently, the compensation amount comes as under:-
Sr. Heads of Compensation Compensation
No. compensation granted by the granted by this
ld. Tribunal Court.
1. Loss of dependency Rs.10,12,401/- Rs.10,12,401/-
2. For love and Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
affection
3. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
4. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. For funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
6. For medical bills Rs. 3,603/- Rs. 3,603/-
6. For loss of services Nil Rs. 50,000/-
rendered by the
deceased
Total Rs.10,66,004/- Rs.13,01,004/-
Resultantly, this Court enhances the compensation amount to
Rs.2,35,000/- (Rs.13,01,004 - Rs.10,66,004)
20. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of
the amount.
21. Accordingly, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with upto date interest
with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of six weeks
from today, failing which, appellants/claimants shall be entitled for penal
interest @ 12% per annum on account of delayed payment.
22. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount
in favour of the appellants/claimants in terms of the impugned award
dated 15.12.2012 on taking necessary steps by them.
23. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2014
Sb/jg
