BEER PAL & ORS. v. ARVIND KUMAR & ORS.

Judgment

1. The Appellants impugn a judgment dated 01.08.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of ‘3,57,500/- was awarded for the death of Haridwari Devi @ Harduri who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on

13.10.2008.

2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurer, the finding on negligence has attained finality between the parties.

3. While computing loss of dependency, the Claims Tribunal held that Smt. Hardwari Devi was working as a housewife; the value of the gratuitous services rendered by her was taken to be ‘3,000/- per month; deduction of one-fourth was made towards expenses as the number of dependents were seven and thus, a sum of ‘2,92,500/- was awarded towards loss of MAC. APP. 963/2011 gratuitous services to the Appellants and a compensation of ‘65,000/- was awarded under non-pecuniary heads.

4. There is twin challenge to the judgment. Firstly, it is urged that the compensation awarded is very low. The Claims Tribunal did not properly assess the value of the gratuitous services rendered by the deceased housewife. Secondly, it is contended that the vehicle was duly insured, yet, the Claims Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that the Insurance Company had successfully established the breach of the terms of the policy. It is urged that the Respondent Insurance Company failed to prove the willful breach of the terms of policy. Hence, it could not avoid its liability.

6. As far as award of compensation in case of death of a housewife is concerned, the question was dealt with in great detail by me in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors. MAC. APP. 590/2011, decided on 30.01.2012. In Master Manmeet Singh this Court noticed following judgments of the Supreme Court:- (i) General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176, (ii) National Insurance Company Limited v. Deepika & Ors., 2010 (4) ACJ 2221, (iii) Amar Singh Thukral v. Sandeed Chhatwal, ILR (2004) 2 Del 1, (iv) Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197, MAC. APP. 963/2011 (v) Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr. v. R.M.K. Veluswami & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1, (vi) A. Rajam v. M. Manikya Reddy & Anr., MANU/AP/0303/1988, (vii) Morris v. Rigby (1966) 110 Sol Jo 834 and (viii) Regan v. Williamson 1977 ACJ 331 (QBD England), and laid down the principle for determination of loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife. Para 34 of the judgment in Master Manmeet Singh (supra) is extracted hereunder:- “34. To sum up, the loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife shall be:- (i) Minimum salary of a Graduate where she is a Graduate. (ii) Minimum salary of a Matriculate where she is a Matriculate. (iii) Minimum salary of a non-Matriculate in other cases. (iv) There will be an addition of 25% in the assumed income in (i), (ii) and (iii) where the age of the homemaker is upto 40 years; the increase will be restricted to 15% where her age is above 40 years but less than 50 years; there will not be any addition in the assumed salary where the age is more than 50 years. (v) When the deceased home maker is above 55 years but less than 60 years; there will be deduction of 25%; and when the deceased home maker is above 60 years there will be deduction of 50% in the assumed income as the services rendered MAC. APP. 963/2011 decrease substantially. Normally, the value of gratuitous services rendered will be NIL (unless there is evidence to the contrary) when the home maker is above 65 years. (vi) If a housewife dies issueless, the contribution towards the gratuitous services is much less, as there are greater chances of the husband‟s re-marriage. In such cases, loss of dependency shall be 50% of the income as per the qualification stated in (i), (ii) and (iii) above and addition and deduction thereon as per (iv) and (v) above. (vii) There shall not be any deduction towards the personal and living expenses. (viii) As an attempt has been made to compensate the loss of dependency, only a notional sum which may be upto ‘ 25,000/- (on present scale of the money value) towards loss of love and affection and ‘ 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, if the husband is alive, may be awarded. (ix) Since a homemaker is not working and thus not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss of estate.”

7. In the instant case, there is no evidence with regard to the deceased’s educational qualification. Thus, the compensation towards loss of gratuitous services is to be awarded on the basis of Minimum Wages for a non-Matriculate as fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Since the deceased was aged 49 years, there would be an addition of 15% and the appropriate multiplier would be 13. The loss of gratuitous services to the Appellants thus comes to ‘6,95,354/- (3876/- + 15% x 12 x 13). MAC. APP. 963/2011

8. On adding a notional sum of ‘65,000/- towards non pecuniary heads, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the overall compensation thus comes to ‘ 7,60,354/-.

9. With regard to breach of the terms of policy, it is well settled that the onus is on the Insurance Company to prove the breach of the terms of policy.

10. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338; in Para 18 of the report, the Supreme Court referred to the decision in Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan,