Ranvir Singh @ Ranbir Singh vs Ram Kumar and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellants seek enhancement of compensation of Rs. 4,21,000/- awarded for the death of Sunehari Devi, who was aged about 52 years and died in a motor accident which occurred on 26.06.2009. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased was a homemaker, well conversant in housekeeping; the value of the gratuitous services rendered by her was Rs. 10,000/- per month.

The Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , took the value of the services to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and computed the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,96,000/-.

It is urged by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that Lata Wadhwa (supra) was decided in the year 2001. The value of services assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month in the year 2009 was very low.

The Appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company 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 Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepika rep. by her guardian and next friend, Ranganathan, Ranganathan, Rajeswari and S. John Antony,

(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.

It is admitted that the deceased was not having any educational qualification. The Appellants were, therefore, entitled to the compensation on the scale of minimum wages of a Non-Matriculate.

On applying the ratio of Master Manmeet Singh (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,44,764/- (4127/- x 12 x 11).

The compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary heads also needs to be raised. No compensation under the head of loss of love and affection was awarded by the Claims Tribunal. As 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 Rs. 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under this head.

The overall compensation is re-assessed as under:-

Sl. No.

Compensation under various heads

Awarded by the Claims Tribunal

Awarded by this Court

1.

Loss of Dependency

Rs. 3,96,000/-

Rs. 5,44,764/-

2.

Loss of Love & Affection

--

Rs. 25,000/-

3.

Loss to Estate

Rs. 10,000/-

Rs. 10,000/-

4.

Funeral Expenses

Rs. 5,000/-

Rs. 10,000/-

5.

Loss of Consortium

Rs. 10,000/-

Rs. 10,000/-

Total

Rs. 4,21,000/-

Rs. 5,99,764/-

The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 4,21,000/- to Rs. 5,99,764/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,78,764/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

Respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with upto date interest within 30 days with the Registrar General of this Court.

The enhanced amount shall be distributed amongst the Appellants in the same proportion as ordered by the Claims Tribunal.

The Appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.