JUDGMENT

G. P. Mittal, J.

MAC.APP. 590/2011

1. The Appellant Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited seeks reduction of compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- awarded in favour of the Respondents (Claimants) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (the Claims Tribunal) by judgment dated 05.04.2011 for the death of their mother Jasvinder Kaur who died in an accident which took place on 04.11.2009.

2. In fact, Respondents No. 1 to 3's father Harvinder Singh also lost his life in this very accident.

3. The contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that the Tribunal arbitrarily took the value of the gratuitous services rendered by the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

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) 9 SCC 218 to hold that it is difficult to value the services rendered by a wife and a mother. It did not follow Clause 6 (b) of the second Schedule to the M.V. Act to take one-third of the surviving spouse's income as taken in Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra) as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision had lamented that taking one-third of the surviving spouse's income was not based on any sound principle.

6. The Tribunal relied on Lata Wadhwa whereby value of the services rendered by a housewife aged upto 59 years was taken as Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal doubled it to Rs. 6,000/- on account of inflation as Lata Wadhwa (supra) was decided in the year 2001 selected a multiplier of 15' and after deduction of one-third towards the personal living expenses, computed the loss of dependency as Rs.7,20,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral charges and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to estate to compute the overall compensation as Rs.8,50,000/-. There is no Appeal by the Claimants.

7. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly. In Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90, the Supreme Court held that "the Court and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any."

8. First of all, I would deal with Clause 6 (b) of the second Schedule to the M.V. Act (under Section 163A) which provides that the income of a non-earning spouse, who has died, may be taken as one-third of the income of the survivin