$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 26th September, 2012 + MAC.APP. 832/2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Appellant Through Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate versus RAMAN JI THAKUR & ORS Respondents Through Mr.Manish Maini, Advocate for R-1 to R-3 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. 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 `3,75,000/- towards loss of gratuitous services for death of Smt.Kali Devi aged 60 years and a sum of `20,000/- as counsel’s fee was awarded in favour of Respondents No.1 to 3.
2. 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. v. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., 2012 ACJ 721, wherein this Court determined the value of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife.
3. In Master Manmeet Singh (supra), this Court noticed following judgments of the Supreme Court:-
(i) General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176,
(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 & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197,
(v) Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr. v. R.M.K. Veluswami & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1,
(vi) A. Rajam v. M. Manikya Reddy & Anr., MANU/AP/0303/1988,
(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:-
“34. 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 ` 25,000/- (on present scale of the money value) towards loss of love and affection and ` 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.”
4. The minimum wages of a non-matriculate on the date of the accident were `4127/- per month. On applying the principles laid down in Master Manmeet (supra), the loss of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife comes to `3,34,287/-. Respondents No.1 to 3 shall be further entitled to a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `10,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses. Thus, the grant of compensation of `3,75,000/- cannot said to be excessive and exorbitant. The same does not call for any interference.
5. Learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 3 concedes that award of `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.
6. In view of above discussion, the award of compensation of `3,75,000/- is maintained and the order for payment of `20,000/- towards counsel’s fee is set aside.
7. 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).
8. 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.
9. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Oriental Insurance Company.
10. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
11. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 v (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE