Delhi High Court
Deepak Kumar vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ... on 26 November, 2014
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 26.11.2014
+ MAC.APP. 1012/2012
DEEPAK KUMAR
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate
versus
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.& ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH (ORAL)
1. By the present appeal the appellant seeks enhancement of the
compensation amount granted as per award dated 03.04.2012.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the claim petition before the Tribunal
are that the deceased namely Rajmani was going on a motorcycle on
03.10.2010 which was driven by Mr. Deepak Kumar, the appellant. When
they reached at Ring Road, Sarojini Nagar Flyover, opposite CNG station,
one TSR which was being driven by respondent no.2 in a rash, careless and
negligent manner and at very high, fast and violent speed took a sharp turn
without giving any indication & hit the motorcycle on which the deceased
was a pillion rider.
3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal held that the accident
took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the TSR. The Tribunal
awarded the total compensation of Rs.85,000/- . For loss of dependency
Rs.50,000/- has been awarded. For love and affection Rs.25,000/- and
Rs.10,000/- for Funeral Expenses have been awarded, making a total
compensation of Rs.85,000/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
compensation awarded is inadequate. He submits that the Tribunal has
wrongly awarded Rs.50,000/- for loss of dependency. He relies upon the
judgment of this High Court in 'Royal Sundaram Alliance versus Manmeet
Singh 2012 ACJ 721. He submits that loss of dependency has to be
calculated based on the minimum wages applicable to the deceased.
5. It is lastly submitted that compensation for non pecuniary benefits
was on the lower side.
6. In Royal Sundaram versus Manmeet Singh (supra) this court has
for computing loss of dependency stated as follows:-
Para 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.
7. The issue that now arises is as to what were the educational
qualifications of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the deceased was a non-matriculate. However a perusal of the record
shows that there is nothing on record regarding the educational qualification
of the deceased. The evidence of PW1 and the claim petition are silent
about the educational qualification of the deceased.
8. This Court in 'Royal Sundaram case' has held that for the services
rendered by a housewife the minimum wages as applicable to non-
matriculate are to be used where the deceased is non-matriculate or
matriculate. The minimum wages for non-matriculate in October, 2010 were
Rs.5850/-. Hence the income of the deceased is assessed at the said figure.
The deceased was 54 years old. Accordingly, as per the said judgment no
enhancement could be there for the future prospect. No deduction as per the
said judgment is there for personal expenses. Hence, accordingly loss of
dependency would be Rs. 7,72,200 (5850 x12x 11).
9. As per the above noted judgment only Rs.25000/- is to be paid for
love and affection. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.25,000/- towards
love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Compensation
under these heads is in order. Hence total compensation comes to
Rs.8,07,200/-.
10. The respondent No.1 would deposit the additional compensation
amount along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
present petition till deposit in this Court. On receipt of the said amount by
the Registrar General of this Court, 50% of the amount shall be released to
the appellant and 50% amount be kept in an FDR for five years with UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi. The claimants shall be entitled
to receive quarterly interest on the FDR in the same proportion as provided
in the Award. On maturity the same shall be released to the appellants
proportionately in the same proportion as done by the Tribunal.
11. The appeal stands disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J
NOVEMBER 26, 2014
An
