United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Devi Dass and Others <BR> Devi Dass and Others Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 12.12.2007 passed by Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Jammu in File No. 473/Claim, titled as Devi Dass and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (for short, impugned

award), whereby an award of Rs. 4,34,000/ - along with 7% interest came to be awarded in favour of claimants and against the insurer-insurance

company from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeals.

The dispute in both the appeals is about the quantum of compensation. According to learned Counsel for insurer-insurance company the

Tribunal has not deducted 1/3rd income of deceased Satya Devi after assessing her income at Rs. 3000/ - per month. He accordingly prayed that

the same be deducted for her personal expenses and Rs. 2000/ - be assessed as loss of dependency. However, learned Counsel for claimants

argued that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 12 while assessing the loss of dependency, which in fact should be 15.

In order to return a finding, it is necessary to give a brief resume of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the present appeals.

It is averred in the claim petition that one Ram Singh while driving the offending vehicle, i.e., bus bearing No. JK02S-2810 rashly and negligently

caused accident near Kishanpur while coming from Kurukeshtra to Haridwar. The offending vehicle carrying 50 pilgrims struck against a Truck

bearing No. 30GA-9921 which was stationed on the road side, as a result of which four lady pilgrims sustained injuries and succumbed to the

injuries on spot. Deceased Satya Devi, a housewife, was 42 years old and was also earning Rs. 5500/ - per month from tailoring work. The

claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 14 lacs as per the break- ups given in the claim petition.

Insurer-insurance company filed objections. The owner-insured has not filed any objection. The following issues came to be framed:

Whether an accident took place on 18.4.2004 at Yamuna Nagar due to rash and negligent driving of offending bus No. JK02S-2810 in the

hand of erring driver in which deceased Satya Devi and Raj Rani sustained fatal injuries? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved inaffirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

Whether driver of offending bus at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence? OPR-1

Whether claim petitions are liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties, if so which are necessary parties? OPR-1

Relief. OP Parties

The claimants were directed to lead evidence and have examined PWs Khem Raj, Vijay Kumar, Rattan Chand, Dev Raj, and Devi Dass, one

of the claimants, in support of their case. PWs Khem Raj, Vijay Kumar and Rattan Chand were also traveling in the said ill-fated bus.

Insurer-insurance company, insured-owner and driver of offending vehicle have failed to lead any evidence. Thus the evidence of claimants has

remained unrebutted.

All the witnesses have deposed that the driver while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently caused accident, as a result of which

deceased Satya Devi sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. She was 41 years of age at the time of accident. She was a housewife,

rendering good services to the family and was also earning Rs. 1000/ - from tailoring work.

Issue No. 1

The parties are not at variance on this issue. However, there is sufficient proof on the file and claimants have also proved that the offending

vehicle was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, as a result of which he caused accident in which deceased Satya Devi sustained

injuries and succumbed to the injuries on-spot. Thus the finding returned on Issue No. 1 is upheld.

Issue Nos. 3 and 4.

The onus of issues 3 and 4 was on insurer-insurance company, owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle. They have not led any

evidence, thereby have failed to discharge the onus. Even no dispute was raised by the insurer-insurance company about the factum of accident,

thus came to be rightly decided in favour of claimants and are accordingly upheld.

Issue No. 2

The claimants have not led any evidence in order to prove that how much the deceased was earning as a house-wife, but have said that she

was rendering good services to the family. It is a hard fact that a housewife renders very-very important services to her family and she is the back

bone of the family. No doubt there is no proof on the file regarding earning of the deceased, but now-a-days a labourer is earning not less than Rs.

200/ - to Rs. 250/ - per day. If somebody has to keep a maid-servant for watch and ward and to manage the entire house, he has to pay Rs. 150/

- to Rs. 200/ - per day or Rs. 3000/ - to Rs. 4000/ - per month in lump-sum. By guess work it can be safely said and held that the income of

deceased would have been more than Rs. 4500/ - per month.

The Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar AIR 2001 SCC 3218 has laid down that how to assess the loss of dependency in the

event of death of a housewife. It is apt to reproduce para-10 of the said judgment:

So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has

been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age ground of the

housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has

been arrived at Rs. 12,000/ - per annum in cases of some and Rs. 10,000/ - for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the

claimants, who ought to have given dates for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the

value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration the multifarious services

rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs. 3000/ - per month and Rs. 36,000/ - per

annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation

awarded, therefore, should be re-calculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs. 36,000/ - and thereafter applying the

multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs. 50,000/ - instead of Rs.

25,000/ - given under the report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been

taken at Rs. 10,000/ - per annum and multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the value of services rendered at Rs.

10,000/ - per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs. 20,000/ - per annum. In their case, therefore, the total

amount of compensation should be re-determined, taking the value of services rendered at Rs. 20,000/ - per annum and then after applying the

multiplier, as already applied and thereafter adding Rs. 50,000/ - towards the conventional figure.

Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimants have lost the contribution/source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3000/ - per

month.

The witnesses examined by the claimants have deposed that the deceased was 41 years of age at the time of accident, same is supported by

documentary evidence, i.e., the postmortem report. Thus the argument of learned Counsel for insurer-insurance company that without proof the

Tribunal has taken the age of deceased as 41 years is without any force.

Learned Counsel for claimants in cross appeal argued that the multiplier applicable was 15, but the Tribunal has wrongly applied 12. The

Tribunal after keeping all facts of the case in view came to the conclusion that multiplier 12 is just and appropriate. I am also of the considered

opinion that the Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier 12 and needs no interference. Having glance of the above discussion, the impugned award

merits to be upheld and appeals merit to be dismissed. Accordingly the impugned award is upheld and the appeals are dismissed.