Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Raman Ji Thakur and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company impugns a judgment dated 18th May, 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- towards loss of gratuitous services for death of Smt. Kali Devi aged 60 years and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as counsel''s fee was awarded in favour of Respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Manish Maini, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3 concedes that the case is covered by a judgment of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and Vs. Master Manmeet Singh and Others etc. etc., , wherein this Court determined the value of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife.

In Master Manmeet Singh (supra), 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.

The minimum wages of a non-matriculate on the date of the accident were Rs. 4127/- per month. On applying the principles laid down in Master Manmeet (supra), the loss of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife comes to Rs. 3,34,287/-. Respondents No. 1 to 3 shall be further entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses. Thus, the grant of compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- cannot said to be excessive and exorbitant. The same does not call for any interference.

Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3 concedes that award of Rs. 20,000/- towards counsel''s fee was not inconsonance with the judgment of this Court in the case of ''ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanti Devi & Ors.'', MAC APP. 645/2012, decided on 30.07.2012. He states that the said part of the order may be set aside.

In view of above discussion, the award of compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- is maintained and the order for payment of Rs. 20,000/- towards counsel''s fee is set aside.

By an order dated 1st August, 2012, the Appellant Oriental Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation awarded (less counsel''s fee) with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch in the name of Respondents No. 1 to 3 (Claimants).

The compensation awarded shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in favour of Respondents No. 1 to 3 in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Oriental Insurance Company.

Appeal is allowed in above terms. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.