Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs Sukh Ram

K.C. Sood, J.—This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises out of the award made by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimla dated 1.12.1992. In order to appreciate the controversy facts in brief may be noticed:

Respondent Sukh Ram was the claimant before the Tribunal. Appellant Himachal Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as ''the Corporation'' was the respondent owner of the bus involved in the accident. On 3.9.1989, Sharda Devi boarded bus HPS 4387 of the Corporation at village Tihana for Shimla. Ramesh Singh, respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal, was the driver of the bus. The bus rolled down into a gorge near Sainj resulting in the death of seven passengers. Sharda Devi sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 21.9.1989 at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla where she was brought for treatment. The Corporation admitted the accident as well as the death of Sharda Devi.

Learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. He made an award of Rs. 1,46,800 in favour of Sukh Ram claimant husband of deceased Sharda Devi in the following terms:

(a) Loss of dependency to the petitioner Rs. 64,800 (b) Loss of a living being of the family Rs. 80,000 (c) Expenses on post death ceremonies Rs. 1,000 (d) Litigation costs Rs. 1,000 _______________ Total: Rs. 1,46,800 _______________

The Tribunal further directed that if the amount of award was not tendered or paid to the claimant within 40 days of the award, the Corporation shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the award.

Dissatisfied, the Corporation is in this appeal.

We have heard Mr. Deepak Gupta, the learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation and Ms. Devyani Sharma, Counsel for the claimant-respondent and have perused the record.

The contention of Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant is that there was no justification to award an amount of Rs. 80,000 for ''loss of a living being of the family''. He submits that at the most, some reasonable amount for the loss of consortium could have been awarded. It is true that after having assessed the loss of dependency to the claimant, loss of compensation on account of ''loss of a living being of the family'' could not have been made. However, we find that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the overall award made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive.

The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, found that the deceased was employed as helper to her husband who worked as carpenter and was earning Rs. 35 per day. This evidence is not controverted. Even if the deceased was working for 240 days or eight months in a year, she was earning Rs. 8,400 per annum. Deducting 1/3rd amount for her expenses, accrual to the estate comes to Rs. 5,600 per annum. Admittedly, the deceased was 25 years of age and husband 35 years. Taking into consideration the age of the claimant and his deceased wife, multiplier of 17 will be fair and reasonable. Thus, the amount of compensation under this head comes to Rs. 95,200.

Now there is unchallenged evidence on record to show that apart from working during day, she was looking after the house, her husband and other household affairs. It is the evidence of claimant husband, Sukh Ram, PW 1 that his wife apart from helping him in his profession was attending to domestic work.

It is now well settled that pecuniary loss which a husband suffers in the case of death of a housewife consists of loss of services that the deceased provided to the husband gratuitously. Even nurse or domestic help cannot provide the services, which a wife renders in keeping the house. Gratuitous services rendered by a wife have to be replaced by keeping a domestic help or other modes, which will entail pecuniary expenditure, and to assess compensation an appropriate multiplicand and multiplier has to be arrived at taking into consideration the relevant factors including the age of the husband and dependants. We are supported in our view by a Division Bench authority of this court in Rakesh Kumar and Another Vs. Prem Lal and Others,

Now taking into consideration the background of the family, the age of the deceased and the claimant husband, it will be fair and reasonable to assess the gratuitous services of the deceased to the household at Rs. 300 per month or Rs. 3,600 per annum. Applying a multiplier of 16, the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 57,600 under this head. Adding usual expenses for funeral and other ceremonies of Rs. 2,000, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,54,800 whereas, the Tribunal has awarded Rs, 1,45,800 apart from the costs assessed at Rs. 1,000. The overall award thus made by the Claims Tribunal, even after accepting the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant, cannot be said to be excessive.

For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.