Delhi High Court
Mukul & Ors vs Kamruddin & Ors on 19 September, 2014
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.09.2014
+ MAC.APP.1098/2011
MUKUL & ORS ..... Appellant
Through Mr. S. N. Parashar, Advocate
versus
KAMRUDDIN & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr.R.C.Mahajan, Advocate for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present Appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The claim petition was filed under section 166 and 140 of the
M.V.Act. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.07 the deceased
Smt.Pinki alongwith her daughter was sitting on the back seat of the scooter
driven by her husband and they were coming from Faridabad to Delhi. At
Sarai Check, Faridabad, they were hit by a Tata truck said to be driven in a
very high speed, rashly and negligently. The deceased fell down along with
her daughter and husband and she died in the accident.
3. The Tribunal noted that the deceased was 31 years. Relying on
various judgments holding that the value of services rendered by a house
wife will be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal assessed the loss of
dependency based on the said figure. A multiplier of 16 was adopted and
the Tribunal awarded the following compensation:-
Loss of valuable services Rs.5,76,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of Love and affection Rs. 30,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 1,691/-
Total Rs. 6,22,691/-
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the tribunal
has wrongly taken the income as Rs.3,000/- per month which is contrary to
the judgment of this Court in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., ILR (2012) IV
DELHI 547. He submits that the compensation payable for the death of the
deceased has to be calculated based on the principles laid down by this
Court. He further submits that amount of compensation on account of loss of
consortium and under the head of loss of love and affection is on the lower
side.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, states that the
age of the deceased has wrongly been mentioned by the Tribunal as 31
years. He submits that apart from the daughter who was sitting with the
mother at the time of the accident, the deceased had a son who was 18 years
old and hence it cannot be said that the deceased was 31 years old but would
be 36 years.
6. This Court in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Co.Ltd. vs. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors. (supra) in para 34 held as
follows:-
"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)........
(vi)......
(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. Keeping in view the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Co.Ltd. vs. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors. (supra), the income of the
deceased for the purpose of calculating loss of valuable services is to be
taken as the minimum wages of a non-matriculate, which at the time of the
accident were Rs. 3,709/-. Further, in view of the above judgment, an
increase of 25% on account of future prospects in the assumed income
shall also be made.
8. On the issue of the age of the deceased, keeping in view the facts
and circumstances of the case, the contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent is accepted. The age of the deceased cannot be taken as 31
years as she had a son who was 18 years of age. The deceased should have
been atleast 36 years of age. Taking the age of deceased as 36 years,
according to the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. DTC & Anr.
(2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of 15 should be applied.
9. In view of the above, the compensation under the head of loss of
valuable services comes to Rs.8,34,525/- [(3,709+25%) x 12 x 15].
10. Coming to loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Supreme Court in the case of
Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 regarding the
non-pecuniary heads of damages noted as follows:-
"That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly
understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love,
care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be
compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary
damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of
award of compensation in other parts of the world more
particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc.
English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to
get compensation even during the period of temporary
disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an
attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort,
solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care
and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the
compensation awarded in other countries and other
jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately
compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to
award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the
view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts
award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium."
11. In view of the above, the amount under the head of loss of consortium
is enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
12. Now coming to the compensation awarded under the head of loss of
love and affection. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs.
Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on
account of love and affection for the children. This has been reitrated by the
Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Yerramma vs. G. Krishnamurthy,
2014(10) SCALE 213. Accordingly, in my opinion the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of love and affection of Rs.30,000/-
is inadequate and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.
13. Hence, the total compensation payable is as follows:
Loss of valuable services Rs. 8,34,525/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of Love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 1,691/-
Total Rs. 10,41,216/-
14. The claimant shall also be entitled to pendente lite interest @6% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.
15. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by respondent no.3 within
four weeks from today. On deposit of the said amount, same shall be
released in favour of the claimants proportionately as per the directions in
the award of the tribunal.
16. The appeal stands disposed off.
JAYANT NATH, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
n/sh
