Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3923 (MAD)

Krishnamoorthy v. Subramanian

2013-11-14

S.VIMALA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Self-less service of the women in doing the job of the wife as well as the mother was omitted to be quantified in terms of money. Added to that, the Tribunal has taken the unfair view that the earnings of the wife through milk business cannot be construed as her self-earnings. This omission and commission on the part of the Tribunal, which is stated to have done injustice to the claimants, is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The claimants, i.e., husband and two minor children, claimed compensation in respect of the death of Dhanam in an accident that took place on 28.06.1993. It was the contention of the claimants that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month and on account of the untimely death of the mother, the children suffered loss of guidance and support and the husband also suffered loss of consortium. So contending, they claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The Claims Tribunal, on strange reasons, has awarded only a sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation. The finding of the Claims Tribunal and the quantum of compensation awarded are under challenge. 4. The Tribunal has ordered compensation of Rs.52,000/-, out of which Rs.2,000/- is said to be towards cremation expenses of the deceased; Rs.10,000/- is stated to be compensation for loss of his wife on the date of accident, Rs.20,000/- each has been awarded to the two minor children, but on no stated grounds. 5. The Tribunal has mentioned in paragraph 14 of the judgment that as the suggestion made by the counsel for the insurance company that a lump sum of Rs.52,000/- can be awarded was not opposed by the counsel for the claimants, it would be adequate if a sum of Rs.52,000/- is awarded as compensation. 6. Whether the amount, as ordered by the Claims Tribunal, is a just compensation, is the issue canvassed by the claimants in this appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just compensation, irrespective of the admissions / contentions raised on either side and that there had been denial of justice on account of gender bias and that it should be rectified. 7. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just compensation, irrespective of the admissions / contentions raised on either side and that there had been denial of justice on account of gender bias and that it should be rectified. The following findings in the order of the Claims Tribunal are pointed out to show that the claimants have suffered loss, on account of prejudice in the mind of the Tribunal for want of right attitude to render gender justice. 8. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was helping her husband in his business, apart from doing agricultural work and milching. The Tribunal disbelieved this evidence on the ground that the deceased, being a woman having two children, would have been cooking at home and doing household activities only. Even assuming that sitting at home, she could have done milk business, but the income earned on account of milk business cannot be construed as her self-earnings. 9. The Tribunal misread the evidence of the husband where he has stated that his wife used to do the household activities. This evidence, under the given set of circumstances, should have been interpreted meaning that the wife was doing household activities, apart from other agricultural activities and milk business. But, the Tribunal interpreted the same saying that as the wife was doing household activities, she could have engaged herself in any other activities. It is common knowledge that the women who are doing household activities also engage themselves in other activities of earning and vice versa. Such being the case, the Tribunal is incorrect in disbelieving the evidence of the husband. 10. It is the settled position of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that the household services of the women should be quantified in terms of money. The Tribunal should have awarded compensation at least on account of loss of household services. That has not been done. 10.1. It would be relevant to refer to the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. Rajam v. M. Manikya Reddy and Anr., 1989 ACJ 542, in which the principles and the principal factors that should be kept in mind, while awarding compensation on account of loss of household services has been explained. The relevant observations read thus: "12. ... It would be relevant to refer to the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. Rajam v. M. Manikya Reddy and Anr., 1989 ACJ 542, in which the principles and the principal factors that should be kept in mind, while awarding compensation on account of loss of household services has been explained. The relevant observations read thus: "12. ... (i) The loss to the husband and children consequent upon the death of the house-wife or mother has to be computed by estimating the loss of 'service' to the family. If there was reasonable prospect of such service being rendered freely in the future but for the death. It must be remembered that any substitute to be so employed is not likely to be as economical as the house-wife. Apart from the value of obtaining substituted services, the expenses of giving accommodation or food to the substitute must also be computed. From this total must be deducted the expense the family would have otherwise been spending for the deceased house-wife. (ii) While estimating the 'service' of the house-wife, a narrow meaning should not be given to the meaning of the word 'service' but should be construed broadly and one has to take into account the loss of constant "love and affection" as also of personal care and attention 'by the deceased to her children' as a mother and to her husband, as a wife. The award is not diminished merely because some close relation like a grandmother is prepared to render voluntary services.” 11. It is in evidence that the father has married again, after the death of his wife. Therefore, the contribution from the father would be less to the children than before. The Tribunal, finding that the husband has married again, has observed that compensation on account of loss of love and affection would come to the husband through his second wife. The Tribunal has not taken efforts to quantify the compensation in terms of settled principles and factors. 12. Had proper methods been applied in quantifying the compensation, it would be evident that the claimants would be entitled to more than what is claimed. 13. According to the averments made in the claim petition, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. Accepting the evidence of the husband, (which includes the household services), the monthly income of the deceased should be taken at Rs.2,500/-. 13. According to the averments made in the claim petition, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. Accepting the evidence of the husband, (which includes the household services), the monthly income of the deceased should be taken at Rs.2,500/-. If so, the annual income must be Rs.30,000/-. Deducting one-third towards personal expenses, the annual contribution would be Rs.20,000/-. When the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 27 years, the proper multiplier would be 17. Therefore, the quantum of compensation on account of loss of income would be Rs.3,40,000/-. 14. As the first claimant / husband has chosen to have second marriage immediately after the death of his wife, the loss of consortium is awarded only at Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant, a sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the two minor children towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total compensation payable would be Rs.4,00,000/-. 15. With the above enhancement in the award of compensation from Rs.52,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. As the amount awarded now by this Court is higher than what is claimed in the claim petition by the claimants, the claimants will pay the Court fee for the additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, before they receive the award from the Tribunal. 16. It is represented that the second respondent / insurance company has already deposited the award amount of Rs.52,000/- as ordered by the Tribunal. The insurance company shall deposit the balance amount of Rs.3,48,000/-, along with interest at 6% p.a. ( as the accident is of the year 2000) from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the first appellant / claimant is entitled to withdraw only a sum of Rs.40,000/- along with proportionate interest. The second and third appellants each is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. The second and third appellants might have attained majority by now. On filing necessary applications before the Tribunal, the second and third appellants are permitted to withdraw the same. No costs.