MAC.APP. 68/2015 Page 1 of 21

$~41

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

MAC. APP. NO. 68/ 2015

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. K. L. Nandwani, Adv.

versus

AMRESH KHASSA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

C.M. APPL. NO. 1110/ 2015 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

MAC. APP. NO. 68/ 2015 AND C.M. APPL. NO. 1109/ 2015 (stay)

1.

The Appellant Shriram General Insurance Company Limited impugns

the judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.

MAC.APP. 68/2015 Page 2 of 21

26,77,320/- was awarded in favour of Respondents no. 1 and 2 for the

death of Smt. Santosh, a graduate and a qualified JBT teacher.

2.

It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Claims

Tribunal erred in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Royal

Singh and Ors., 2012 ACJ 721:1 (2013) ACC 360 computing the loss

of gratuitous services rendered by Smt. Santosh.

3.

It is urged that in the instant case, the claim petition was filed seeking

compensation based upon the potential income of the deceased

claiming it to be Rs. 25,000/- per month. It is contended that the

Claims Tribunal erred in granting future prospects to the extent of

25% and deduction towards personal expenses was not made.

4.

The learned counsel states that the judgment in Master Manmeet

on 19.11.2013 which case was decided by way of compromise. It is

urged that another appeal arising out of the said judgment in United

Ors. has been challenged by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)

MAC.APP. 68/2015 Page 3 of 21

No. 39376/ 2012 which is pending consideration before the Supreme

Court.

5.

Various appeals have been filed against the judgment in Master

Manmeet (supra) but there is no order which has been brought to my

notice wherein the proposition of law as laid down has not been

approved. Rather an appeal being SLP (C) No. 19711/ 2012 filed

against the above-referred judgment in ICICI Lombard General

Insurance Company Limited v. Shiv Kumar and Ors. was dismissed

by the Supreme Court by an order dated 24.07.2012.

6.

Although Respondents no. 1 and 2 claimed compensation claiming the

potential income of deceased Santosh to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per

month as she was a graduate and qualified JBT diploma holder, yet the

Claims Tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of minimum

wages of a graduate i.e. Rs. 10,218/- per month.

7.

It may also be seen that no addition towards future prospects was

made.

8.

It may be noted that in fact in Master Manmeet (supra), no addition

towards future prospects was made but it was laid down that the value

of gratuitous services in the initial years by the housewife will be more

MAC.APP. 68/2015 Page 4 of 21

and the same will go on decreasing by passing years as with age, the

value of gratuitous services decreases.

9.

In paras 4 to 34 in Master Manmeet (supra), this Court held as under:-

MAC.APP. 68/2015 Page 5 of 21

features, if any.”

MAC.APP. 68/2015