Order on Board

09.04.2024 This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated 22.09.2018 passed in Claim Case No. H - 05/2017 by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 31,60,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 06,74,800/- on account of death of deceased Smt. Kesar Dewar in an accident that took place on 05.10.2016 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Pajero car bearing registration No. CG 04 HS 1000 driven by the respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with respondent No. 3 / insurance company.

2. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 35 years and was earning Rs. 300/- per day by doing scrap business.

3. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds and the learned Tribunal framed issues on the basis of the pleadings and decided the same in favour of the appellants /

claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side, future prospect is also not awarded and compensation on all other heads is also on the lower side. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Arun Kumar Agrawal and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 218.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the award and submits that just compensation has been awarded hence no interference is warranted.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record.

7. In the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra), it was held as below:-

“26. In India the Courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children.

27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of housewife/mother. In that context, the term `services' is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependents cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

62. Alternative to imputing money values is to measure the time taken to produce