- (1.) Both the appeals arise out of the same accident. FAO No.1827 of 1995 is for death of a one Kamlesh and the claimants are the husband and a minor daughter. The husband himself was an injured person in the same accident and he was a claimant in yet another case which is the subject of appeal in FAO No.1826 of 1995. The deceased and the injured were passengers in the jeep which had a head-on collision with the passengers bus belonging to the Haryana Roadways. The Tribunal found that it was a case of composite negligence and after observing that the claimants had not impleaded the owner of the jeep, made a partial abatement of the claim to the extent of 50% and passed the award against the Haryana Roadways only. As regards the compensation, the Tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs.70,000/- as the amount payable to the claimants for the death of Kamlesh and as regards the claim for compensation for injuries, the Court awarded Rs.40,000/- and made a partial abatement of 50% for the same.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that in a case of composite negligence, law allows for enforcement of the claim in full against anyone of the tort feasors and so long as the deceased or the injured had not themselves contributed to the accident, the question of abatement of any portion of the claim does not arise. The law is settled on this aspect and this Court has an occasion to deal with the entire case law on the subject in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Meena Kumari and others in FAO No.4246 of 2006, dated 24.08.2010. There could not have been an abatement of a claim and the claimants were entitled to enforce the entire award against the Haryana Roadways itself.
(3.) As regards the quantum of compensation determined for the death of the housewife, the case law on this aspect has been settled that there should be an endeavour of the Court to the value of the householder's services. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Arun Kumar Agrawal and another Versus National Insurance Company and others, 2010 9 SCC 218 approved of the formula adopted by the Madras High Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Minor Deepika, 2009 6 MadLJ 1005. In that case, the Court had taken the value of the services of the householder at Rs.3,000/-. Since the accident relates to the year 1993, I would take the value of the services rendered to the family at Rs.2,000/- and provide for a loss arising on account of the death to the husband and adopt a multiplier of 17 and provide Rs.4,08,000/- as the monetary loss. I would also add Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the husband and Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection for the child. To this amount, shall be added conventional heads of claim for loss to estate and funeral expenses another sum of Rs.5,000/-. The amount in all shall be Rs.4,23,000/-. The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment and it shall be shared equally between the husband and the minor daughter.;