AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 13.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 8,56,000/- awarded for the death of Smt. Geeta who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 04.09.2006. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-1LE-3906 by Respondent No. 4.
During the inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was found that the deceased Geeta was a housewife who left behind her husband and two minor children. The Claims Tribunal took the value of a gratuitous services rendered by Geeta to the family as Rs. 4,000/- per month and awarded a compensation of Rs. 8,16,000/- towards the loss of gratuitous services to Respondents No. 1 to 3.
The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is tabulated hereunder:-
Sl. No.
Compensation under various heads
Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
1.
Loss of Dependency
Rs. 8,16,000/-
2.
Loss of Consortium
Rs. 10,000/-
3.
Loss of Love and Affection
Rs. 10,000/-
4.
Loss of Estate
Rs. 10,000/-
5.
Funeral Expenses
Rs. 10,000/-
Total
Rs. 8,56,000-
It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the value of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month was excessive and exorbitant.
This case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., MAC.APP. 590/2011, decided on 30th January, 2012. This Court noticed the 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."
Respondents No. 1 to 3 did not produce any evidence with regard to the educational qualification of the deceased. She was aged 27 years at the time of the accident. Thus, taking the value of gratuitous services as Minimum Wages of a non-Matriculate i.e. Rs. 3505/- in terms of Master Manmeet Singh and applying the principles extracted above, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 8,93,775/- (3505/- + 25% x 12 x 17).
The loss of dependency itself is more than the overall compensation of Rs. 8,56,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is excessive. The same is just and reasonable.
The Appeal is groundless. The same is accordingly dismissed.
The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. Pending Applications stand disposed of.