AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs. 6,73,000/- awarded for the death of Smt. Chetna Negi who died in a
motor vehicle accident which occurred on 30.11.2007. A Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) was preferred by
Respondents No. 1 and 2 who are the parents-in-law of the deceased Smt. Chetna Negi, who was aged 25 years at the time of the accident. A
''No Objection'' was given by Chetna Negi''s father that the compensation may be awarded in favour of Respondents No. 1 and 2.
The Claims Tribunal accepted that the deceased Smt. Chetna Negi was a housewife. The Claims Tribunal relied on Mathura Dutt and Others
Vs. DTC and Another, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shamsher Singh & Ors. 1 (2004) ACC 209 (J&K); Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs.
State of Bihar and Others, and Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, to take the value of the gratuitous
services rendered by the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and granted compensation of Rs. 6,48,000/- towards the loss of dependency.
The award of compensation in case of housewife is settled by 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 up to 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 up to 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 deceased was a Matriculate and thus the minimum wages of a Matriculate is to be taken into consideration to award loss of dependency.
The question that falls for consideration is what would be the gratuitous services rendered to the parents-in-law?.
The major part of the services rendered by a housewife would be towards her husband and the children. Of course, the housewife as a
daughter-in-law would also render some gratuitous services to the parents-in-law. Moreover, in the social context prevalent in the country,
mother-in-law herself would also assist in the household services rendered by the daughter-in-law. Thus, the value of gratuitous services rendered
to the parents-in-law would be one-third of the total gratuitous services.
Thus, applying the principles as laid down in Master Manmeet Singh the loss of dependency (for gratuitous services) in the context of gratuitous
services to parents-in-law would come to Rs. 1,69,379/- (3764/- + 25% x 1/3 x 12 x 9).
I would further make a provision of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral
expenses.
The overall compensation thus comes to Rs. 2,14,379/- which shall carry interest @ 8% per annum as granted by the Claims Tribunal.
The excess amount of Rs. 4,58,621/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall
be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
The amount awarded by this Court shall be disbursed in favour of the Claimants in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
The Appeal is allowed in above terms. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.