Compensation for homemakers must reflect their value and contributions, and liability exists for insurance claims despite a lack of valid driving licenses.

JUDGMENT :

K.MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the MV Act’) challenging the impugned Judgment and Award dated 04.01.2019 on the file of the XIII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in MVC No.3205/2017. The Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.6,98,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, towards grievous injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant in a road traffic accident that occurred on 07.02.2017, which occurred when the petitioner was walking as a pedestrian and rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA-05/JV-4211 ridden in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant.

2. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider.

3. Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

4. It is observed by the Tribunal that counsel for Respondent No.2-Insurance Company has contended that there is no dispute regarding the ownership of said motorcycle and liability if any, shall be subject to the terms and conditions of policy. It is further contended that the rider of offending vehicle had no valid driving licence as on the date of the accident.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.6.98,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., and directed the Respondent No.1-owner of motorcycle to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has contended that she was a Home Maker and has suffered traumatic brain injury and other grievous injuries and admitted in Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru as inpatient for 11 days and underwent surgery and other medical procedure. The claimant has examined the Medical Records Assistant of Apollo Hospital, as PW-2 and produced supporting documents. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards Loss of Future Income and awarded a meager sum of Rs.6,98,500/- as compensation without considering the fact that the claimant has undergone surgery and other medical procedure and advised rest for 06 months.

7. Learned counsel for the claimant has relied upon the following citations in support of his case:

Kirti and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166

20. One category of non-earning victims that Courts are often called upon to calculate the compensation for are homemakers. The granting of compensation for homemakers on a pecuniary basis, as in the present case, has been considered by this Court earlier on numerous occasions. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar, while dealing with compensation for the victims of a fire during a function, granted compensation to housewives on the basis of the services rendered by