Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 868
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
G.P. MITTAL, J.
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
AMRESH KHASSA AND ORS. – Respondents
MAC. APP. NO. 68/2015
Decided On : 20-1-2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. K.L. Nandwani
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-A, 168 - Accident - Claim petition - Compensation - Deduction - Compensation on the basis of potential income - Deceased claiming Rs. 25,000/- per month compensation - It was claimed that Tribunal erred in granting future prospects to the extent of 25% and deduction towards personal expenses was not made - Value of services rendered by a home maker should be taken as the minimum salary of a non-matriculate, matriculate or a Graduate - In case of a young mother and a wife there should be an addition of 25% of the minimum salary/ wages as per the educational qualification - There should be addition of 15% in the case of a middle aged mother and a wife and 'NIL' in case of a wife and a mother beyond the age of 50 years - Value of gratuitous services rendered should be gradually reduced after the age of 55 years, even though mothers take care of their children and even when they are married - While awarding compensation for loss of gratuitous services rendered by a homemaker the Claims Tribunals or the Court simply value the services - Husband looks after the wife and some amount is definitely spent on her maintenance - If a deceased housewife who lost her life in a motor accident would have died a natural death, the pecuniary advantage on account of savings made of the expenditure required for her maintenance would have otherwise also accrued to the benefit of the Claimants - Since this pecuniary advantage does not become receivable only on account of accidental death, portion of the husband's income cannot be deducted.
G.P. Mittal, J.
C.M. APPL. NO. 1110/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.
MAC. APP. NO. 68/ 2015 AND C.M. APPL. NO. 1109/ 2015 (stay)
1. The Appellant Shriram General Insurance Company Limited impugns the judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 26,77,320/- was awarded in favour of Respondents no. 1 and 2 for the death of Smt. Santosh, a graduate and a qualified JBT teacher.
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Claims Tribunal erred in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Master Manmeet Singh and Ors., 2012 ACJ 721: 1 (2013) ACC 360 computing the loss of gratuitous services rendered by Smt. Santosh.
3. It is urged that in the instant case, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation based upon the potential income of the deceased claiming it to be Rs. 25,000/- per month. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in granting future prospects to the extent of 25% and deduction towards personal expenses was not made.
4. The learned counsel states that the judgment in Master Manmeet (supra) has been challenged in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surat Singh Mehta and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 10586/2013 decided on 19.11.2013 which case was decided by way of compromise. It is urged that another appeal arising out of the said judgment in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Devinder @ Devinder Singh and Ors. has been challenged by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 39376/ 2012 which is pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
5. Various appeals have been filed against the judgment in Master Manmeet (supra) but there is no order which has been brought to my notice wherein the proposition of law as laid down has not been approved. Rather an appeal being SLP (C) No. 19711/2012 filed against the above-referred judgment in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Shiv Kumar and Ors. was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 24.07.2012.
6. Although Respondents no. 1 and 2 claimed compensation claiming the potential income of deceased Santosh to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month as she was a graduate and qualified JBT diploma holder, yet the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of minimum wages of a graduate i.e. Rs. 10,218/- per month.
7. It may also be seen that no addition towards future prospects was made.
8. It may be noted that in fact in Master Manmeet (supra), no addition towards future prospects was made but it was laid down that the value of gratuitous services in the initial years by the housewife will be more and the same will go on decreasing by passing years as with age, the value of gratuitous services decreases.
9. In paras 4 to 34 in Master Manmeet (supra), this Court held as under:-
“4. To assess the value of services rendered by a homemaker so as to calculate the loss of dependency in case of her death in a road accident is an uphill task. Sometimes the Claims Tribunals have taken the salary of a skilled worker and sometimes have taken 50% wages of a skilled worker. Clause 6 (b) of the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act) lays down that the income of a non-earning spouse shall be considered to be one-third of the income of the surviving spouse. There seems to be no logic behind this. If I may say so, it is totally arbitrary and, therefore, can only be restricted to the grant of compensation as per the structured formula in petitions filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act.
5. The Claims Tribunal (in MAC APP. 590/ 2011) referred to the judgment of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197; M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151; some English decisions and it heavily relied upon the judgment in Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Limited., (2010
