Cross Objection No.53-CII of 2009 v. Ms. Vandana Bajaj & Anr.

Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents. ****** K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL)

1. The appeal and the cross appeal arise out of a claim for compensation for death of the mother of the claimant. There was another case filed by the very same claimant for the death of her brother in claim petition No.453 of 2004 and an award has been passed for ` 60,000/-. There is no appeal against the same. As regards the death of the mother, an award of Rs.3,65,000/- has been made and this appeal has been filed challenging the quantum. There is cross objection by claimant seeking for enhancement. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that deceased was the bread earner for the family. The father, who was arrayed as respondent, did not take care to support the family and he was in the habit of lotteries etc. and, therefore, deceased was supporting the family by engaging herself in stitching and other activities. In the absence of any Cross Objection No.53-CII of 2009 and FAO No.2137 of 2008 (O&M) -2- documentary evidence relating to the income, the Tribunal took the notional income of a semi shilled worker at Rs.3000/- per month and applied a multiplier of 15 and provided for compensation of ` 3,65,000/- after adding ` 5000/- towards funeral expenses.

2. There have been some decisions recently of the Hon'ble Supreme Court assessing the loss of services of house holder to be worthy of reckoning in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Aggarwal and another Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 Recent Apex Judgment 262. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took the value of the house holder's service at ` 3000/- per month and even suggested to the legislature to make an appropriate law for assessment of the house holder's services. The claimant is the daughter 23 years of age and under the normal circumstances, she could not be said to wholly financially dependent on the mother. The loss to the daughter, however, is truly poignant in this case, for there were pleading and evidence that father was not properly supporting the family and, therefore, it was the mother, who has making an earning and supporting the family. The unmarried daughter's dependence on a parent is unexceptional and the assessment of compensation by taking the contribution of the mother as 2/3rd of the family after providing 1/3rd for own expenses has a sound legal basis. The Tribunal was again justified in taking the income at ` 3000/- per month as the value of her services in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding the alleged nature of occupation. She was said to be engaged in raising the resources for supporting the family. I would assume the value of the services Cross Objection No.53-CII of 2009 and FAO No.2137 of 2008 (O&M) -3- that would be relatable to a daughter through the income, which she could have earned and contributed to a daughter could be taken at ` 3000/- per month and the compensation provided, therefore, in the manner reckoned by the Tribunal could be seem to be reasonable and just. There is no scope for providing for any “conventional amount” in the manner pleaded by the learned counsel. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Piara Singh and others Versus Satpal Kumar and others, reported in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 546. The Hon'ble Division Bench was dealing with a case for death of a house holder and after assessing a compensation of ` 1,30,000/- under various heads, after referring to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and others Versus State of Bihar and others, 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 673: 2001 A.C.J. 1735, the value of the domestic services was assessed at ` 36,000/- per annum and a compensation amount was assessed by applying a suitable multiplier of 8 on a multiplicand of Rs.27,000/-. There was no addition of ` 50,000/- in the manner canvassed by the learned counsel. They have been in some judgments reference to “conventional amounts”. This is no expression of art. This is merely an euphemism employed for loss to estate, funeral expenses or loss of consortium. Invariably, all these heads could never have any specific documentary evidence and Courts provide for such a claim in all cases and refer to them by a loose expression “conventional head”. To plead for a conventional head as though there exists a head of claim is meaningless. The claim in such a fashion is, therefore, rejected. Cross Objection No.53-CII of 2009 and FAO No.2137 of 2008 (O&M) -4-

3. The learned counsel, in his grounds of objection, has also urged that the compensation as assessed for the death of the brother at ` 60,000/- was erroneous. The death of a brother is an independent cause of action and the claimant knew that to be so. Consequently, two petitions were filed and disposed of together. If the claimant had any objection to the award passed in her petition for compensation for death of her brother, it should have been through an independent appeal against the award and not by way of cross objection in the appeal filed by the owner against the award passed in relation to the death of the mother. The cross-objection is invariably in the nature of the attack to a finding in relation to the award which is assailed by the appellant. The award that is assailed in the above FAO by the owner is with reference to the award of compensation for death of the mother. The owner has not felt himself aggrieved by the award passed in the other case relating to the death of the brother and, therefore, there is no scope for urging for a cross objection seeking for enhancement. The fact that issues were taken together for disposal cannot avail to respondent in the appeal to canvass for correctness of the award, passed in another claim petition, which is not the subject of an appeal at all. The award passed already stands confirmed in all respects and I see no scope for interference either at the instance of the owner or at the instance of the respondent-claimant. The appeal and the cross-objection are dismissed. October 28, 2010 Gagan (K.KANNAN) JUDGE