Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hanuman Singh And Ors vs Pema Ram And Ors on 19 August, 2021

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 740/2007

1. Hanuman Singh S/o Mool Singh, aged 50 years.

2. Vijay Singh S/o Hanuman Singh, aged 23 years.

3. Ganpat Singh S/o Hanuman Singh, aged 20 years.

4. Santosh Kanwar D/o Hanuman Singh, aged 18 years. All by caste Ravana Rajput, R/o Gotton at present Nagaur, R.S.E.B. Colony, Nagaur.

Appellants- claimants No.3 & 4 are minors through their natural guardian and father Hanuman Singh, appellant-claimant No.

----Appellants-Claimants Versus

1.Rema Ram S/o Ramkaran, b/c Jat, R/o village Phardod Tehsil Jayal District Nagaur.

2. Jagdev Ram alias Jagdish S/o Gangaram, b/c Jat, R/o village Bodva, Tehsil Jayal District Nagaur.

3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Head office-5, 3 Middlestone Street, Calcutta, Branch nagaur and Divisional Office at Residency Road, Jodhpur.

----Respondents-Non-petitioners

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot for Mr. Rajesh Panwar.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bachhawat.

Mr. S.R.Paliwal.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

19/08/2021

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-

claimants against the judgment and award dated 25.01.2003

passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur in Motor

Accident Claim Case No.28/1999, whereby the Tribunal partly

allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants and

(2 of 6) [CMA-740/2007]

awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation with

an interest @ 6% p.a.

A claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants on

account of death of one Geeta Kanwar in the accident which

occurred on 03.01.1999. In the said accident, the deceased

sustained injuries and died at the spot. The Tribunal after framing

the issues and evaluating the evidence brought on record decided

the claim petition.

Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed findings

recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.2. He submits that deceased

Geeta Kanwar was 38 years of age at the time of the accident and

was helping the family in cultivation of the agricultural field. It is

contended that husband of the deceased, namely Hanuman Singh

who appeared before the Tribunal as witness (AW1) stated that

the family owns about 24-26 bighas of agricultural land. His wife

deceased Geeta Kanwar was fully involved in cultivation of the

agricultural land. The income derived from the agricultural field

was about Rs.20,000/- p.a. In the cross examination of this

witness, nothing contrary came on record showing that the family

does not possess the said agricultural land and the income derived

from the same. It is also contended that besides helping the

family in cultivation of the agricultural land, the deceased was also

doing the work of upkeep of the house, maintenance of the

children and cooking food for the family etc. Therefore,

involvement of the deceased in each and every work of the house

cannot be quantified in terms of money but at the same time

deprivation of the same has huge impact on the entire family. To

buttress his contention, learned counsel relies upon the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh & Ors.

(3 of 6) [CMA-740/2007]

V/s National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. (2020) 7

SCC 256. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal committed

error in not calculating the amount of compensation in the present

case in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited

V/s Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157. The counsel

submits that though loss of deceased for the entire family cannot

be quantified but for rough assessment of the compensation in the

present case, the calculation may be done in the light of Judgment

of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company

V/s Pranay Sethi (supra).

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance

Company submits that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on

issue No.2 do not suffer from any infirmity as no documentary

proof was submitted before the Tribunal showing annual income of

the deceased, therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded a lump sum

amount of Rs.75,000/- in favour of the appellants-claimants. He

further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the instant

case, payment of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation can be

termed as just compensation. Therefore, he prays that the

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any

interference by this court and the same may be upheld.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar, gone

through the judgment dated 25.01.2003 passed by the Tribunal as

also perused relevant record of the case.

The factum of accident is not disputed in the present case

and age of the deceased being 38 years is admitted. The fact of

dependency in the family is also not disputed. In the humble

opinion of this court, the Tribunal committed error in awarding a

(4 of 6) [CMA-740/2007]

lump sum amount of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation on

account of death of Geeta Kanwar. The fact that deceased was

involved in cultivation of the agricultural land belonging to the

family has also come on record in the testimony of Hanuman

Singh (AW1). The Statement of Hanuman Singh is credible as

nothing contrary was produced on record by the insurance

company to show that the family does not have any agricultural

land and the deceased was not earning Rs.20,000/- p.a. from the

earning of agricultural produces. Therefore, the Tribunal

committed error in not considering the income of the deceased

Geeta kanwar. Further, it is a fact of common knowledge that role

of women in the domestic life is un-parallel as she is involved in

almost each and every affair starting from upkeep of the house,

maintenance of children and cooking food etc. The contribution of

a lady who is a house wife cannot be quantified, some

methodology/modality should be taken into consideration for

estimating the value of the services rendered by her for

quantifying the compensation for the loss caused to the family.

The Hon'ble Supreme Colurt in the case of Rajendra Singh &

Ors. (supra) has held as under:-

"10. In Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the housewife at Rs.5,000/- per month, but without any rational or reasoning concluded that she was a non-earning member and reduced the same to Rs.2,500/-, which was affirmed by the High Court. Disapproving the same and restoring the assessed income, this Court observed at Paras 26 and 27 as follows:(SCC pp.237-38) "26. In India the courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular

(5 of 6) [CMA-740/2007]

hours. She takes care of all the requirements of the husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children.

27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/mother. In that context, the term "services" is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti & Anr.

Etc. V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has held as under:-

"Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation which can be summarized as follows:

a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law. b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.

c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally.

e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation."

(6 of 6) [CMA-740/2007]

Thus, compensation in the present case is required to be

recomputed as under:-

                                        Date of Accident                 :        03.01.1999
                                        Deceased                         :        Geeta Kanwar
                                        Age                              :        38 years
                                        Multiplier                       :        15
                                        Dependents                       :        03
                                        Future Prospects                 :        40%
                                        Deduction for personal expenses                   :       1/3
                                        Monthly Income                   : Rs. 1666/- (20,000 /12)
                                        On adding F.P. (40%)             : Rs. 2,332/-
                                        After deducting P.E.             : Rs. 2,332/3= Rs. 777/-
                                                                              Rs. 2332-777 =Rs. 1,555/-
                                        Yearly Income                    : Rs.18,660/- (1555x12)
                                        On applying Multiplier           : Rs. 2,79,900/- (18660x15)
                                        Conventional heads               : Rs.          77,000/-
                                        Total Award                      : Rs. 3,56,900/-
                                        (-) Already Awarded
                                        by the Tribunal                  : Rs.      75,000/-
                                        Enhanced Amount                  : Rs. 2,81,900/-

In view of the discussion made above, the appeal is disposed

of and an amount of Rs.2,81,900/- is enhanced in the present

case. The enhanced amount shall be paid by the insurance

company to the appellants- claimants within a period of six weeks

from today. The said amount shall carry an interest @ 6% p.a.

from the date of filing of the application. However, the Insurance

Company shall be free to recover the same as ordered by the

Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 25.01.2003.