Rajasthan High Court
Naresh Kumar Sharma And Another vs R S R T C on 10 December, 2021
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
(1 of 7) [CMA-2194/2012]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2194/2012
1. Naresh Kumar Sharma aged about 45 years S/o Shri Santu
Lal Sharma, R/o C-113, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Miss Akanksha aged about 17 years daughter of Shri Naresh
Kumar Sharma (Minor through her father Shri Naresh Kumar
Sharma), R/o C-113, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parhivhan Marg,
Jaipur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Singhal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
10/12/2021
Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-
claimants against the judgment and award dated 05.03.2012
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in
Claim Case No.307/2002 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed
the claim filed by the claimants and awarded a sum of
Rs.3,35,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 6% w.e.f. the date
of filing of the claim petition.
A claim petition was filed by the claimants-appellants on
account of death of Savita and unborn child in an accident which
occurred on 15.02.2000. In the said accident, the deceased Savita
and child in her womb also died. The Tribunal after framing the
(2 of 7) [CMA-2194/2012]
issue and evaluating the evidence brought on record decided the
claim petition.
Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed findings
recorded by the Tribunal of issue No.4. He submits that the
deceased Savita was 30 years of age at the time of accident and
she was pregnant and she was carrying pregnancy of child in her
womb. He further submits that the deceased was running a
beauty parlor and she was doing the work of unkeep of the house,
maintenance of the daughter 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 Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar
Agrawal & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company & Ors. reported
in 2010 MACD (SC) 223.
Counsel for the appellant further submits that the Tribunal
committed an error in not calculating the amount of compensation
in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157. He further submits that
though loss of the 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 the
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra). It is also contended on
behalf of the appellants that in the said accident unborn child of
the appellant No.1 and the deceased Savita also died and in view
of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sonia
(3 of 7) [CMA-2194/2012]
Giri Vs. Bhava Ram and Ors., decided on 14.10.2019 in S.B. Civil
Misc. Appeal No.1281/2010 the appellants are entitled to get
compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No.4
do not suffer from any infirmity as no documentary proof was
submitted before the Tribunal showing annual income of the
deceased and no documentary proof was submitted to prove the
fact that the deceased was running a beauty parlor. Hence, the
Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- in
favour of the appellant-claimants. 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 bar and gone
through the judgment dated 05.03.2012 passed by the Tribunal as
also perused the relevant record of the case.
The factum of accident is not disputed in the present case,
the factum of death of Savita and her unborn child is also not
disputed, the age of the deceased being 30 years is admitted. The
fact of dependency in the family is not disputed. In the humble
opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has committed an error in
awarding a compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- only to the claimant-
appellants. The Tribunal has lost a site on the fact that the roll of
women in the domestic life is un-parallel and as she is involved in
almost each and every affair starting from upkeep of the house,
maintenance of the children and cooking food etc. The
contribution of a lady who is a house keeper cannot be quantified,
some methodology/modality should be taken into consideration
for estimating the value of the services rendered by her for
(4 of 7) [CMA-2194/2012]
quantifying the compensation for the loss caused to the family.
The Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and Ors. 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
(5 of 7) [CMA-2194/2012]
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.
"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."
That the Tribunal has further seriously erred in arriving at a
finding that the claimants-appellants are not entitled to get any
compensation for the unborn child by saying that the judgment of
(6 of 7) [CMA-2194/2012]
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Kusma reported in 2011 MACD (MAC) 157 is not
applicable in the instant matter because in that matter the death
of the mother of the unborn child did not occur but the child died
in the womb of the mother. The Tribunal has lost a site of the fact
that the appellant No.1 being father and the appellant No.2 being
sister of the unborn child has suffered mental agony on account of
death of the unborn child in the motor accident.
In view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of
Smt. Sonia Giri Vs. Bhava Ram and Ors., the appellants are
entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of death
of the child in the womb of the deceased Savita.
Thus, the compensation in the present case is required to be
recomputed as under:-
Date of accident : 08.03.2000.
Deceased : Savita
Age : 30 years
Future Prospectus : 40%
Monthly income : Rs.2,500/-
Yearly income : Rs.2,500 X 12 X 17 = Rs.5,10,000/-
After deducting personal expenses : 1/3rd = Rs.1,70,000/-
(Rs.3,40,000/-)
On adding future prospects (40%) : Rs.1,36,000/-
(Rs.4,76,000/-)
Conventional heads : Rs.55,000/-
Compensation for unborn child : Rs.2,50,000/-
Total award : Rs.7,81,000/-
Amount already awarded by the Tribunal : Rs.3,35,000/-
Enhanced amount : Rs.4,46,000/-
(7 of 7) [CMA-2194/2012]
In view of the discussion made above, the appeal is disposed
of and an amount of Rs.4,46,000/- is enhanced in the present
case, the enhance amount shall be paid by the respondent to the
appellants-claimants within a period of three months from today.
The said amount shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of filing the claim petition.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Arun/16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
