Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 291 (RAJ)

Gurbaksh Singh v. Narayan Bhai

2012-02-06

VINEET KOTHARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by the claimants Gurbaksh Singh S/O Harman Singh and her sons Surendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Aatam Singh seeking enhancement of the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- awarded by the learned MACT No.2, Udaipur by award dated 25.10.1997 passed in MAC No.73/1994. 2. On 19.11.1993 on account of collision of car No. Rs. 6360 with truck No. GJ-2T-7734 at about 9 a.m. on National Highway No.8, 3 kms. away from Rishabhdeo, the deceased Surjeet Kaur travelling in the car insured with Oriental Insurance Company lost her life, who was 60 years of age at that time. 3. The learned Tribunal in para 27 to 33 of impugned award against the claim of Rs. 9,23,000/- awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- only. Hence, the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Ranjeet Joshi submitted that the lady aged 60 years was actively helping in the agriculture operations and business of her husband and sons and was entitled to the income as per minimum wages for that period and looking to her life expectancy, award of Rs. 75,000/- is on very lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced. 5. On the other hand, Mr. UCS Singhvi appearing for the Insurance Company opposed the request of enhancement. 6. Having heard the learned counsel and in view of the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Arun Kumar Agarwal v. National Insurance Company and ors. reported in MACD 2010 (SC) 223 , the adequate compensation has to be awarded even in the case of deceased being simple house-hold lady as her contribution to the house-hold work has to be measured in terms of money. This court finds that the compensation awarded in the present case by the learned Tribunal by the impugned award deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. In the case of Arun Kumar Agarwal (supra) in para 32, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "32. In our view, it is highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to compute the compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased wife/mother, who does not have regular income, by comparing her services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee, who works for a fixed period. In our view, it is highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to compute the compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased wife/mother, who does not have regular income, by comparing her services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee, who works for a fixed period. The gratuitous services rendered by wife/mother to the husband and children cannot be equated with the services of an employee and no evidence or data can possibly be produced for estimating the value of such services. It is virtually impossible to measure in terms of money the loss of personal care and attention suffered by the husband and children on the demise of the housewife. In its wisdom, the legislature had, as early as in 1994, fixed the notional income of a non-earning person at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and in case of a spouse, ⅓rd income of the earning/surviving spouse for the purpose of computing the compensation. Though, Section 163A does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act, 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 keeping in view the judgments of this Court in General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and ors.( (1994) 2 SCC 176 ) , U.P. S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra ( (1996) 4 SCC 362 ) , Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ( (2009) 6 SCC 121 ) and also take guidance from the judgment in Lata Wadhwa's case. The approach adopted by different Benches of Delhi High Court to compute the compensation by relying upon the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker does not commend our approval because it is most unrealistic to compare the gratuitous services of the housewife/mother with work of a skilled worker." 7. In another case reported in 2011 ACJ 1445 - Urviben Chiragbhai Sheth v. Vijay Bhai Shambhubhai Joranputra and ors. has taken the similar view relying upon the decision in the case of Arun Kumar Agarwal (supra). 8. The said enhancement of Rs. In another case reported in 2011 ACJ 1445 - Urviben Chiragbhai Sheth v. Vijay Bhai Shambhubhai Joranputra and ors. has taken the similar view relying upon the decision in the case of Arun Kumar Agarwal (supra). 8. The said enhancement of Rs. 25,000/- would be payable to the claimant - appellant with interest @8% per annum from the date of award of the Tribunal dated 25.10.1997 till the date of payment, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Laxman v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in MACD, 2011 (SC) 188 . In para 22 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "22. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and it is declared that the appellant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 8,37,640/- with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation. Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay the balance amount of compensation to the appellant with interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of judgment by preparing a draft in his name." 9. With this modification, the appeal of the claimants - appellants is allowed and said enhancement of Rs. 25,000/- with interest @8% shall be paid to the claimants within a period of three months from today by way of cheques of equal amount to all the four claimants. No order as to costs.Appeal Allowed. *******