Calculation of compensation for non-earning house-wife and allocation of non-pecuniary damages under different heads.

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

Deceased, Sunita Tamang was a house-wife. She was aged about 40 years. She died in a motor accident on 01.09.2014. On a claim petition filed u/S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by her husband and minor son (Respondents 1 and 2 herein), the Tribunal assessed her income at Rs. 13,275/- per month, applied multiplier of 15 and after deducting ?rd towards her personal expenses assessed the loss of earning at Rs. 15,93,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 7,96,500/- towards future prospects; Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate; Rs. 25,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs. 25,42,000/- as compensation to Respondents 1 and 2 on account of death of deceased, Sunita Tamang in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition Branch Manager, NIC Ltd. v. K.S. Tamang & Ors. till realization. The Insurance Company was held liable to pay the aforesaid amount.

2. Mr. Thupden G. Bhutia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, raised two fold arguments. He firstly contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case when the deceased was a non-earning member (house-wife), no amount of future prospects would have been awarded. Secondly, he contended that when the funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium were awarded under separate heads, then there was no reason to award Rs. 25,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages because all the said heads were already covering the non-pecuniary damages and the said amount is in repetition.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Rathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, has opposed these arguments and submitted that the Tribunal was right in awarding compensation on account of future prospects and non-pecuniary damages. He argued that if the income of the husband was likely to increase in future and something could has been awarded for his future prospects, the same logic would be applicable in case of house-wife also.

4. Mr. Bhushan Nepal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3, has, however, supported the arguments of Mr. Bhutia.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties.

6. Admittedly, the deceased was a house-wife. The Tribunal on the basis of earning of her husband, i.e. Rs. 39,824/- per month, applying clause 6 (b) of the second schedule u/S. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 held that the income of the deceased should be ?rd of the income/earning of the surviving spouse i.e. her husband and it was determined at Rs. 13,275/- per month. This was done on the basis of the judgment of Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 218 To this extend, the award of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. However, vide paragraph 24 of the award, the Tribunal simply stated that in view of the observation of the Honble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra), an addition of 50% of the actual income should be allowed and it allowed a sum of Rs. 7,96,500/- towards future prospects.

7. I have gone through the judgment of Arun Kumar Agrawal. Though, it talks about the income of the non-earning house-wife/mother to be calculated in the way the Tribunal has calculated, but it never talks about any loss of future prospects of a non-earning house-wife/mother to be calculated in terms of 50% of the actual income assessed. When the deceased was a non-earning member as she was a house-wife, there was no question of future prospects to be calculated in the above terms. The element of the future prospects shall appear for calculation when the deceased was an earning member but in case where deceased was not an earning member and was simply a house-wife/mother, such mode of calculation shall not be applied. The argument of Mr. Rathi that if the future prospects of the husband would earn something, in t