Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh And Another vs Dilbagh Singh Alias Bagga And Others on 16 May, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO No.3310 of 2012 [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.3310 of 2012
Date of decision:16.05.2013
Paramjit Singh and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate,
for the New India Assurance Company Limited.
*****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Appellants are the son and daughter of Baljit Kaur W/o Lakhwinder Singh, who died at the age of 45 on 07.03.2010 in a motor vehicular accident caused by driver Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga of a bus owned by M/s New Majha Transport Cooperative Society Limited. The deceased was a housewife. The Tribunal assessed her income @ `3,000/- per month but applied a cut of `1,000/- towards her personal expenses and with a multiplier of 14, awarded a sum of `3,36,000/- on account of loss of dependency, `5,000/- for loss of estate and `5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total amount of `3,46,000/- was awarded with interest @ 6% per annum to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual realization of the awarded amount. The awarded compensation was ordered to be shared equally by both the FAO No.3310 of 2012 [2] ***** appellants.
Aggrieved against the award, the present appeal has been preferred in which at the time of issuing notice to the Insurance Company, it was ordered that on completion of service, the case be put up before the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the case was listed before the Lok Adalat and on 20.12.2012, the Lok Adalat referred the case back to this Court for adjudication on a question of law as to "whether in case of assessment of the notional income of a housewife, 1/3rd amount is to be deducted to arrive at the figure of dependency?" It was requested by the Lok Adalat that since there were divergent views of the learned Single Judges on the aforesaid issue, the matter may be listed for consideration by a Larger Bench.
Keeping in view the importance of the question involved, stated to be arising daily before the Lok Adalats, the matter was placed before the Division Bench and on 01.03.2013, counsel for the parties agreed that while deciding the aforesaid legal issue, the present appeal may also be decided on merits and for that matter, the record of the Tribunal was summoned and has been received.
We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Although in this case, the appellants have pleaded that their mother, though a housewife, was self-employed earning `3,000/- per month, yet in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and another v. National Insurance Company and others, 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 827, a two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that in case of death of a housewife in a motor vehicular accident, the assessment of compensation FAO No.3310 of 2012 [3] ***** is virtually impossible to measure in terms of money. A housewife takes care of all the requirements of her 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. All these chores could be performed by a maidservant, but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children. Therefore, the dependents are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife. It was also observed that though Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act but in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier.
However, a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court, in the case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No.232 of 1991 decided on 16.08.2001, laid guidelines for the purpose of compensation to be awarded in case of non-earning housewives. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the FAO No.3310 of 2012 [4] ***** housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000/- per annum in cases of some and Rs.10,000/- for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration, the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore, should be re-calculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs.36,000/- and thereafter applying the multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/- given under the report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs.10,000/- per annum and multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the values of services rendered at Rs.10,000/- per annum, cannot be held to be just and we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs.20,000/- per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be re-determined, taking the value of services rendered at Rs.20,000/- per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter adding Rs.50,000/- towards the conventional figure."
Following the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, in terms of the age of the deceased, compensation to the tune of `3,000/- per month was assessed in the present case but while assessing the compensation with the aid of multiplier, 1/3rd amount out of the notional income of `3,000/- was deducted and the dependency was assessed @ `2,000/- per month.
The learned Lok Adalat found divergent views of the learned Single Judges of this Court as to whether the 1/3rd cut should be applied or not?
FAO No.3310 of 2012 [5]
***** In the case of Dayal Singh and others v. Hardip Singh and others, FAO No.832 of 1986, decided on 11.11.2008, the deceased was a housewife aged 39 years. Her notional income was taken as `3,000/- per month in view of the observations made in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra) and the compensation was accordingly awarded without any deduction.
In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rambaran Singh, FAO No.7193 of 2010, decided on 03.12.2010, the Tribunal had taken value of the services rendered by the housewife @ `3,000/- per month and took the extent of dependency at the same amount and while adopting the suitable multiplier, awarded the compensation. Though it was contended by the respondent therein that there ought to have been a deduction for her personal expenses but the said contention was not accepted by the learned Single Judge.
In the case of Manjit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, FAO No.6720 of 2010, decided on 05.12.2011, the deceased was a widowed mother/housewife, aged 45 years. The Tribunal assessed her notional income @ `3,000/- per month but deducted 1/3rd amount on account of her personal expenses which was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and awarded the entire amount of `3,000/-.
On the other hand, in the case of Rajinder Sharma v. Naresh Kumar and others, FAO No.886 of 2007, decided on 14.10.2010, the notional income of the housewife was taken @ `3,000/- per month but an amount equal to 1/3rd was deducted.
In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashok FAO No.3310 of 2012 [6] ***** Kumar, FAO No.1517 of 2003, decided on 22.09.2010, the deceased was a housewife. In this case also, an amount of 1/3rd was deducted out of her total income which was calculated for the purpose of dependency.
In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jagdish and others, FAO No.4004 of 2005, decided on 15.09.2010, income of the deceased housewife was assessed @ `3,000/- per month and 1/3rd amount was deducted out of it.
After the decision in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra), the notional income of the housewife is estimated according to their age. The notional income of the housewife was taken to be `3,000/- per month if she had been between the age group of 34 to 59 at the time of accident. The only riddle which is to be solved by us is as to whether 1/3rd cut should be applied on the notional income or not? The answer to this question is couched in the aforesaid extracted paragraph of the judgment of Lata Wadhwa's case (supra), as in that case, the Supreme Court was searching for a modest notional income of the housewife who was not earning an income but rendering multifarious services while managing all the chores of the family. Since it is a case where the Courts are confronted with the notional income of the housewife on account of her multifarious services which not only includes rearing the children but also performing all matrimonial obligations, in our considered view, the deduction of 1/3rd out of her notional income is not warranted.
We may hasten to add that in all those cases, referred to above, in which 1/3rd cut has been applied, no reasoning has been given by the learned Single Judge rather in the cases, referred to above, in FAO No.3310 of 2012 [7] ***** which 1/3rd cut has not been applied, the learned Single Judge had observed that `3,000/- per month is assessed as monthly value of her services and not her monthly income and, therefore, the concept of deduction cannot be applied. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that while calculating the notional income of the housewife, the entire income should be taken as dependency of the legal heirs without applying any cut much-less 1/3rd, as has been done in certain cases.
Since we had taken up the main case as well for decision, the compensation is, thus, ordered to be assessed @ `3,000/- per month. While quantifying the same, it has to be multiplied by 12 which comes to `36,000/- per annum and on applying multiplier of 14, it comes to `5,04,000/-. The said amount is ordered to be paid along with `5,000/- under the head of loss of estate and `5,000/- as funeral expenses. The total compensation, thus, comes to `5,14,000/- instead of `3,46,000/-. Meaning thereby, the appellants would get an extra amount of `1,68,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. However, rest of the terms would remain the same as settled by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 04.01.2012.
The appeal is disposed of.
[ JASBIR SINGH ] [ RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ]
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
May 16, 2013
vinod*