The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the multi-faceted services provided by a homemaker to her family when computing compensation for the death of a homemaker in a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The present appeal emanates from the Award dated 22.01.2013 ("Impugned Award") passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, New Delhi ("Claims Tribunal") in MACT No. 201/11 titled as `LRs of Sukhbir v. Nishant Narula' wherein the Respondents no.1, 2, 3, 4 (Claimants) were awarded an amount of Rs. 14,18,400/- towards the death of Late Sh. Sukhbir and Rs.17,38,424/- towards the death of Late Smt. Mithilesh with an interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.

2. The appellant company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 for modification/setting aside of the impugned Award with respect to the compensation awarded towards the death of Late Smt. Mithilesh.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. That on the fateful day of 18.04.2011, the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-2CP-5078, being driven by Respondent no.5, got involved in an accident near Main Burari Road, Delhi. Due to the collision, the offending vehicle rammed the motorcycles ahead of it, and consequently individuals, namely, Sukhbir Singh, Mithilesh, Shivani and one Tarun Lamba riding their respective motorcycles were grievously injured. Unfortunately, Smt. Mithilesh along with her husband Sh. Sukhbir Singh succumbed to the injuries attributable to the accident due to haemorrhage shock and cerebral damage as a result of the blunt force. First Information Report (F.I.R.) no. 146/11 was lodged in P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. Appellant no.5 (driver of offending vehicle) was arrested on 19.04.2011 under Sections 279/337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. The offending vehicle was insured with the Appellant vide Policy no. 361003/31/10/6100003595 having validity period from 26.12.2010 to 25.12.2011 in the name of the father of Respondent no. 5.

5. The Appellant submitted a legal offer of Rs. 6,06,000/- qua deceased Smt. Mithilesh based on the investigations carried out by the Investigating Officer. However, the said legal offer was rejected by the Claimants on the ground that the same was not in accordance with Royal Sundaram Alliance Co Ltd v. Manmeet Singh reported as 2012 ACJ 721.

6. Learned Claims Tribunal vide impugned Award dated 22.01.2013 held that Late Sh. Sukhbir Singh and Late Smt. Mithilesh died due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by Respondent no.5. Quantum of compensation was determined to be Rs. 14,18,400/- towards the death of Late Sh. Sukhbir Singh and Rs.17,38,424/- towards the death of Late Smt. Mithilesh.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned Award, specifically with respect to Late Smt. Mithilesh ("the deceased"), the appellant company has filed the instant appeal for suitable modification of the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHLAF OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY

8. Mr. Pradeep Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the compensation awarded while relying upon the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh, reported as 2012 SCC OnLine Del 583 by learned Claims Tribunal towards the death of the deceased is an inflated amount. Learned counsel has submitted that ratio of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance case (Supra) has been challenged in Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to issue a notice. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal erroneously adopted the notional income of Late Smt. Mithilesh, who was a homemaker with no income, based upon the minimum wages prescribed for a non-matriculate. Learned Claims Tribunal entirely ignored the fact that there existed neither any proof of employment/income nor of the educational qualification of the deceased. Learned counsel relied upon the judgement delivered in the case Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, reported as (2001)8 SCC 197 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court presumed the income of de