AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs. 9,62,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Respondents No. 1 to 4 for the death of Smt. Sumitra who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 07.03.2009. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company; thus the same has attained finality.
During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was carrying household work and was also doing the tailoring job. The Claims Tribunal observed that no cogent evidence was produced with regard to the fact that the deceased was doing tailoring work, yet since the deceased was a housewife, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of a skilled worker to award loss of dependency. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses.
It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that the Claimants could not have been awarded compensation on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker. The compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is on the higher side.
While granting compensation for loss of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and Vs. Master Manmeet Singh and Others etc. etc., this Court noticed following judgments of the Supreme Court:-
(i) General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others,
(ii) National Insurance Company Limited v. Deepika & Ors., 2010 (4) ACJ 2221,
(iii) Amar Singh Thukral v. Sandeed Chhatwal, ILR (2004) 2 Del 1,
(iv) Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others,
(v) Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Another Vs. R.M.K. Veluswami and Others,
(vi) A. Rajam Vs. M. Manikya Reddy and Another
(vii) Morris v. Rigby (1966) 110 Sol Jo 834 and
(viii) Regan v. Williamson 1977 ACJ 331 (QBD England), and laid down the principle for determination of loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife. Para 34 of the judgment in Master Manmeet Singh (supra) is extracted hereunder:-
To sum up, the loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife shall be:-
(i) Minimum salary of a Graduate where she is a Graduate.
(ii) Minimum salary of a Matriculate where she is a Matriculate.
(iii) Minimum salary of a non-Matriculate in other cases.
(iv) There will be an addition of 25% in the assumed income in (i), (ii) and (iii) where the age of the homemaker is upto 40 years; the increase will be restricted to 15% where her age is above 40 years but less than 50 years; there will not be any addition in the assumed salary where the age is more than 50 years.
(v) When the deceased home maker is above 55 years but less than 60 years; there will be deduction of 25%; and when the deceased home maker is above 60 years there will be deduction of 50% in the assumed income as the services rendered decrease substantially. Normally, the value of gratuitous services rendered will be NIL (unless there is evidence to the contrary) when the home maker is above 65 years.
(vi) If a housewife dies issueless, the contribution towards the gratuitous services is much less, as there are greater chances of the husband''s re-marriage. In such cases, the loss of dependency shall be 50% of the income as per the qualification stated in (i), (ii) and (iii) above and addition and deduction thereon as per (iv) and (v) above.
(vii) There shall not be any deduction towards the personal and living expenses.
(viii) As an attempt has been made to compensate the loss of dependency, only a notional sum which may be upto Rs. 25,000/- (on present scale of the money value) towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, if the husband is alive, may be awarded.
(ix) Since a homemaker is not working and thus not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss of estate.
An Appeal being SLP (C) No. 19711/2012 filed against the above referred judgment titled ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Shiv Kumar & Ors., was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 24.07.2012.
Thus applying Master Maneet Singh, the loss of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife would come to Rs. 7,97,336/-(4127/- + 15% x 12 x 14).
The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma and Others Vs. Bachitar Singh and Others, and in Baby Radhika Gupta and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, granted only Rs. 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head to Rs. 25,000/- only.
The Claimants are further entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Master Manmeet Singh in Para 34 (ix) it was held that since a homemaker is not working and thus not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss of estate. Thus, no compensation would be payable to the legal representative of the deceased''s housewife towards loss to estate.
The overall compensation thus comes to Rs. 8,42,336/- as against award of Rs. 9,62.000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
The excess amount of Rs. 1,19,664/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
Rest of the compensation shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.