Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Amrit Singh & Ors. on 13 January, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th January, 2015
+ MAC. APP. No.863/2014
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
Versus
AMRIT SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. impugns the judgment
dated 05.08.2014 whereby compensation of Rs.18,24,936/- was awarded
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in favour of
Respondents no.1 to 5 for the death of Chander Wati who died in a motor
vehicular accident which took place on the intervening night of
20/21.02.2014 at about 12:40 a.m.
2. On appreciation of the evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the
accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Tata 407
bearing no.HR-63-B-1315 driven by Respondent no.6 in a rash and
negligent manner who hit the deceased's motor cycle from behind.
During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the
deceased was running a bakery shop under the name and style of M/s
Amrit Fruit Juice and Shake and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The
Claims Tribunal noticed that the Respondents (claimants) failed to prove
that the deceased Chander Wati was running a bakery or had income of
Rs.20,000/- per month. Thus, the Respondents (claimants) were granted
compensation as if the deceased was a housewife and the Claims Tribunal
applied the principles as laid down in Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manmeet Singh & Ors., 2012 ACJ 721 to compute
the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the housewife to be
Rs.15,99,936/-. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of
consortium relying on Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., 2013(6)
SCALE 563. The Claims Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the
respondent failed to prove the business and earning, the compensation
ought to have been awarded on minimum wages of an unskilled worker.
I do not agree. Since the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was
running a bakery and earning Rs.20,000/- per month or that she was
running a bakery, the Claims Tribunal rightly assessed the compensation
payable to the Respondents/claimants on the basis of loss of gratuitous
services rendered by a homemaker. The case is clearly covered by a
judgment of this Court in Master Manmeet(supra).
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that increase of 15%
towards future prospects ought not to have been awarded in view of the
judgment in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9
SCC 65. It may be mentioned that in Master Manmeet (supra), no
addition has been made towards future prospects. It is only the value of
the gratuitous services rendered by the housewife which has been
computed in para 34 of the judgment in Master Manmeet(supra) which has
been extracted by the Claims Tribunal in para 16 of the impugned judgment.
5. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The
appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed in
limine.
6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
7. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- shall also be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2015
pst
