- (1.) CLAIMANTS have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,66,000/- awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, vide its award dated 15.07.2010 in MAC Case No.691/2009, on the ground that income of deceased has been wrongly accepted on notional basis at Rs.15,000/- per annum, whereas there was definite evidence of fact that deceased was a woman working as peon with Neerja Modi School at Jaipur.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for appellant argued that even otherwise, the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar - (2001) 8 SCC 197 and Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. National Insurance Company and Others - (2010) 9 SCC 218, has held that income of Rs.3000/- per month must be accepted even of a house wife, whose contribution to the family cannot be undermined. In this case, appellants asserted that deceased was working as class-IV employee with Neerja Modi School, Jaipur and if that aspect is ignored and deceased is taken to be a housewife, then also her income may be assessed at Rs.3000/- per month. Learned counsel submitted that Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act has notified Rs.100/- per day as wages for unskilled labour with effect from 01.03.2008, therefore, also income of Rs.3000/- can be safely accepted of deceased. Learned counsel for appellants also prays for enhancement of compensation under non-pecuniary heads. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that appellant merely asserted that the deceased was working as Class IV employee with Neerja Modi School, Jaipur but they did not produce any evidence of that fact nor any representative of that school was produced in evidence. It is, therefore, prayed that learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation assuming deceased to be a house wife and her notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum. Besides, learned counsel argued that as per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another - (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 16 should be applied at the age of 32 whereas herein learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing material on record, I am of the view that income of Rs.15000/- per annum would mean that deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1250/- per month, which cannot be accepted because even for unskilled labour prescribed minimum wages was Rs.100/- per day in the year 2009. The Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. National Insurance Company and Others - (2010) 9 SCC 218, has held that it is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of housewife/mother. In that context, the term 'services' is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. In that case, the Supreme Court accepted the income of deceased housewife to be Rs.5000/- per month and accordingly enhanced the compensation. Same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa, supra, wherein it was observed that a wife and mother does not work to set hours and, still less, to rule. She is in constant attendance save for those hours when she is, if that is the fact, at work. During some of those hours she may well give the children instruction on essential matters to do with their upbringing and, possibly, with such things as their homework. This sort of attention seems to be as much of a service, and probably more value to them than the other kinds of service conventionally so regarded. The income of Rs.3000/- per month was held to be modest estimation even for house wife for multifarious services rendered by her. In the circumstances, the income of deceased must be held to be Rs.3000/- per month. As per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, multiplier of 16 is applied instead of 17 at the age of 32 of deceased and in present case deduction of 1/3rd, keeping in view the dependents, is made for own expenses of deceased. After deducting 1/3rd therefrom for own expenses of the deceased, loss of dependency would come to Rs.2000/-. Calculating thus, loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,84,000/- (2000x12x16). Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2000/- to each children for loss of love and affection and Rs.5000/- to husband for loss of consortium and Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses. Considering the facts and circumstances of present case, each children is awarded Rs.5000/- for loss of love and affection thus total Rs.10,000/- to both children, and Rs.10,000/- to husband for loss of love and affection and care in future and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under non-pecuniary heads. Claimant-appellants are thus entitled to receive compensation of Rs.4,09,000/- (384000+25000) instead of Rs.2,66,000/-. The appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation from date of filing of claim petition till actual payment thereof.
(3.) APPEAL accordingly stands allowed.;