Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Babu Singh vs Dalpat @ Dilip (2025:Rj-Jd:5172) on 27 January, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:5172]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1158/2019

1.       Babu Singh S/o Moti Singh, Aged About 52 Years, B/c
         Rajput, R/o Rajputo Ka Baas, Bavlali, Tehsil And District
         Sirohi (Raj.)
2.       Gopal Singh S/o Shri Babu Singh, Aged About 13 Years,
         Minor Through Natural Guardian And Father Babu Singh,
         Appellant No. 1. B/c Rajput, R/o Rajputo Ka Baas, Bavlali,
         Tehsil And District Sirohi (Raj.)
3.       Narendra Singh S/o Shri Babu Singh, Aged About 25
         Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Rajputo Ka Baas, Bavlali, Tehsil
         And District Sirohi (Raj.)
4.       Muna Kunwar D/o Shri Banu Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
         B/c Rajput, R/o Rajputo Ka Baas, Bavlali, Tehsil And
         District Sirohi (Raj.)
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus
1.       Dalpat @ Dilip S/o Faulal Rajpurohit, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o
         Manora, Tehsil And District Sirohi (Raj.) (Driver)
2.       The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through
         Divisional      Manager,        Abhay        Chambers,       Jalori   Gate,
         Jodhpur. (Insurance Company)
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Ravi Panwar
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Sunil Vyas for the Insurance
                                   Company



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Judgment

27/01/2025

1. The present misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act of 1988') against the judgment

and award dated 07.03.2019, passed by the learned Judge, Motor

Acccident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi ('Tribunal') in MAC Case No.

[2025:RJ-JD:5172] (2 of 7) [CMA-1158/2019]

65/2017, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.

5,95,000/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants, while

holding the respondents jointly and severally liable.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 08.05.2017

at around 12:30 AM, the deceased was travelling with her son,

Gopal Singh on the motorcycle bearing Chessis Number

MD2A11CYHRA01251 and Engine no. DHYOHA3783, when it

collided with another motorcycle which was driven by respondent

no.1/rider. On account of the said accident, the deceased suffered

injuries and died subsequently. Thereafter, a case bearing no. CR

31/2017 was registered in Police Station, Barlut, Sirohi District

and a claim was filed before the learned Tribunal.

3. In response to the claim petition, respondent no.1/rider filed

his reply and denied the averments made therein, while

respondent no. 2/Insurance Company submitted that at the time

of accident, the rider was not having valid and effective license to

drive the vehicle.

4. The appellants/claimants examined two witnesses (AW1 and

AW2) and produced documentary evidences (Exb. 1 to 15) in

support of their claim petition. The respondents examined one

witness NAW1(Amit Wadera) and produced documentary

evidence(Ex. NAW1), i.e. the Insurance Policy.

5. After hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal partly

allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.

5,95,000/- to the appellants/claimants in MAC Case No. 65/2017

along with interest @ 10%, while holding both the respondents

jonitly and severally liable for the payment of the said

compensation.

[2025:RJ-JD:5172] (3 of 7) [CMA-1158/2019]

6. Aggreived of the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the

learned Tribunal, the appellants have preferred the present

appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits the

learned Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the

deceased as Rs. 4,000/- inasmuch as she was a homemaker, who

also used to work on fields and derive earning from stitching. He

further submiits that the learned Tribunal has also not granted

compensation towards loss of consortium to her children. He also

submits that the compensation awarded towards loss of estates

and funeral expenses is on a lower side, which deserves to be

enhanced in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay

Sethi[(2017) 16 SCC 680].

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance

Company submits that the appellants/claimants have not

produced any evidence to substantiate that the deceased used to

earn from farming as well as stitching and therefore, in the

absence of any evidence produced for determing the income, the

learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income as Rs. 4,000/-.

9. Heard the counsel and perused the material available on

record.

10. Before dealing with the assessment of notional income of the

deceased (Homemaker) this Court finds it appropriate to take into

consideration relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

this regard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa v.

State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197, while acknowledging the

multifarious services rendered by housewives has assessed their

[2025:RJ-JD:5172] (4 of 7) [CMA-1158/2019]

notional income. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid

judgment is as under:

"10. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs 12,000 per annum in cases of some and Rs 10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given data for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the data for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs 3000 per month and Rs 36,000 per annum..."

11. Further, in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance

Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

observed that although it is not possible to quantify any amount

in lieu of the services rendered by the wife in family but for the

purpose of award of compensation some pecuniary estimate has

to be made. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is

as under:

"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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:5172] (5 of 7) [CMA-1158/2019]

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."

12. Also, in Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company

Ltd., [2021] 1 S.C.R. 989 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while

recognizing the contribution of homemakers in household work

has observed that the conception that homemakers do not 'work'

or they do not add up economic value to the household is a

problamatic idea and the same must be overcome. The relevant

paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is as under:

10. The sheer amount of time and effort that is dedicated to household work by individuals, who are more likely to be women than men, is not surprising when one considers the plethora of activities a housemaker undertakes. A housemaker often prepares food for the entire family, manages the procurement of groceries and other household shopping needs, cleans and manages the house and its surroundings, undertakes decoration, repairs and maintenance work, looks after the needs of the children and any aged member of the household, manages budgets and so much more. In rural households, they often also assist in the sowing, harvesting and transplanting activities

[2025:RJ-JD:5172] (6 of 7) [CMA-1158/2019]

in the field, apart from tending cattle [See Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Minor Deepika rep. by her guardian and next friend, Ranganathan, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 828]. However, despite all the above, the conception that housemakers do not "work" or that they do not add economic value to the household is a problematic idea that has persisted for many years and must be overcome."

13. Thus, it is for the Court to take just notional income for

award of compensaiton. This Court, looking to the facts and

circumstances of the instant case, deems it appropriate to take

notional income of the deceased as Rs.5000/-.

14. This Court finds that the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.

40,000/- towards the head of 'loss of consortium' only to

Appellant No.1 (Husband of the deceased). This Court, in the light

of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Magma

General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ramalias Chuhru Ram

[Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 decided on18.09.2018] finds

it appropriate to award amount under the head of loss of

consortium to appellant nos.2 to 4 (Children of the Deceased) as

well. This Court also finds that the learned tribunal has awarded

Rs.15,000/- each towards 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.

This Court, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi(supra), finds that the amount

under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses deserves

to be enhanced to Rs.18,150/- each and the amount towards loss

of consortium also deserves to be enhanced to Rs.48,400/- each.

This Court also finds that the learned tribunal has applied the

multiplier of 13 however, looking to the age of the deceased i.e.,

45 years the multiplier of 14 is applicable to the age bracket of 41

[2025:RJ-JD:5172] (7 of 7) [CMA-1158/2019]

to 45 years as per the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla

Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

15. Thus, in view of the above, the amount awardable to the

appellants/claimants is as under:-

                                   S. Particulars                              Amount           as Amount        as
                                   No                                          awarded by the awarded/modified
                                   .                                           learned tribunal    by this court


                                   1. (add) Compensation towards loss          Rs.5,20,000/-            Rs.7,00,056/-
                                      of dependency
                                      5000(per month) +1250(future
                                      prospect @25%)- 2083 (1/3
                                      deduction on account of personal
                                      expenses) x 12 x 14 (Multiplier) =
                                      Rs.7,00,056/- [A]
                                   2. (add) Loss of Consortium 48,400          Rs. 40,000/-             Rs.1,93,600/-
                                      x 4 = 1,93,600/- [B]
                                   3. (add) Funeral Expenses [C]               Rs.15,000 /-             Rs.18,150/-
                                   4. (add) Loss of Estate [D]                 Rs.15,000/-              Rs.18,150/-
                                   5  (add) Transportation Expenses            Rs.5,000/-               Rs.5,000/-
                                      [E]
                                     Gross Total [A]+[B]+[C]+[D]+[E]           Rs.5,95,000/-[F]         Rs.9,34,956/-
                                                                                                        [G]
                                                                    Enhanced Amount [G]-[F]
                                                                                                        Rs.3,39,956/-

                                        16.    Therefore,   the     instant         appeal        preferred   by      the

appellants/claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award

passed by the learned tribunal is modified accordingly.

17. The appellants/claimants are held entitled to get enhanced

compensation of Rs.3,39,956/- along with interest @8% p.a.

(same as awarded by the learned tribunal) from the date of filing

of the claim petition in the same manner as directed by the

learned tribunal.

18. The amount of compensation, if any disbursed to the

appellants/claimants, shall be adjusted accordingly.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI)J 376-/amit/-