The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of a different yardstick for the deduction in the case of the death of a housewife, considering the immeasurable services rendered by her and re-assessing the compensation based on legal principles established in relevant judgments.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is submitted by the 2nd respondent in O.P. (M.V.).No.605 of 2010 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The said claim petition was submitted by the respondent herein, seeking compensation for the death of his wife due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 19.05.2010.

2. According to the claimant, the accident occurred when the car in which the deceased was travelling capsized due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent in the claim petition and due to the injuries sustained, she passed away. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of the accident and was a housewife. The compensation was claimed in such circumstances.

3. The appellant alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein they admitted the coverage of the policy but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also disputed. The said claim petition was tried along with three other claim petitions, which arose from the very same accident.

4. The evidence in these cases consists of oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A28. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car and being the insurer of the said vehicle, the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.11,82,400/-and the appellant was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is submitted challenging the quantum of compensation.

5. Heard Sri.George Cherian(Thiruvalla), learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.N.Santhosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. The primary contest in this case is regarding the quantum of compensation. The appellant contends that the amount is exorbitant, whereas the respondent would contend that the Tribunal awarded a reasonable amount.

7. I have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions raised by either side. The first aspect to be noticed is the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency. One of the crucial contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is about the deduction made by the Tribunal, which was 1/3. According to the learned counsel, 50% ought to have been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as she left behind only one dependent. The learned counsel also places reliance upon the observations made by the honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802] and also a decision rendered by this Court in Sujatha P. v. M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2017 (4) KLT 899]. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant opposes the said contention by pointing out that, as far as a housewife is concerned, a deduction of 50% is unrealistic, as she is not likely to spend too much on herself so as to warrant such a deduction. Moreover, when considering the case of a housewife, the crucial aspect to be taken into account is that she is not actually earning any income, but the assessment of the monthly income is being made only to compute the compensation. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that, in Sarla Verma (supra), the specific issue as to the deduction to be made in the case of the death of a housewife towards personal expenses, was not considered at all.

8. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. Of course, it is true that, in Sarla Verma’s case, in paragraph 30, it was observed that when the deceased is married and the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, the deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased should be