SASIDHARAN Vs. ANANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the death of a 45 years old lady in a motor accident whose husband and daughter are the appellants herein. The M.A.C.T. found that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus in which the deceased was travelling as a passenger. Even though the compensation claimed was for Rs. 5,00,000 the M.A.C.T. awarded total compensation for Rs. 1,50,000 with a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the said amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Counsel for the appellant contended that the income adopted i.e. 1,500 per month is too low for the purpose of determining the compensation for loss of dependency. He has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 8 SCC 197, wherein the Supreme Court has adopted Rs. 3,000 as notional income for a housewife.

(2.) The Counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand contended that no loss of dependency can be granted for the death of housewife because the 1st appellant was an earning member and was not depending on his wife. Secondly the 2nd appellant though minor at the time of death of her mother in the accident attained the age of majority shortly thereafter as she was 17 years at the time of the accident. The Counsel for the appellants submitted that whatever compensation is granted it must be paid by the Insurance Company as the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy.

(3.) We are unable to accept the contention raised by the Insurance Company that the appellants are not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency. Even though the deceased as a housewife was not earning any positive income, she was rendering services in the house to her husband and daughter which are lost to them after her death. A housewife traditionally takes care of all family matters like cooking, cleaning, washing clothes, etc. and takes personal care of children particularly daughters until they are married or otherwise settled. Though difficult to value the services of a housewife, the same has to be estimated reasonably. At least until his re-marriage, the 1st appellant has to engage somebody for the work in the house which will cost him good money. Considering all these we are of the view that at least an amount of Rs. 3,000 should be fixed as notional income for the deceased for the purpose of granting compensation for loss of dependency. So far as the multiplier applied i.e. 10 adopted by the M.A.C.T. is concerned, the appellant's case is that going by the age of the deceased the applicable multiplier is 13. The Counsel for the Insurance Company contended the multiplier must be the lower one applicable between the deceased and the claimants. According to him, considering the age of the 1st appellant which is 50 the multiplier is 11 as against 10 taken by the M.A.C.T. However, going by the age of the deceased and the age of the 2nd appellant multiplier to be taken is 13. The Counsel for the Insurance Company further contended that since the daughter/2nd appellant attained the age of majority shortly after the death of her mother, she ceased to be a dependent and is not entitled to compensation. We are unable to accept this contention also because attaining the age of majority is not an indication of ceasing to be dependent on parents and what is required is to find out as to whether the 2nd appellant is able to support herself financially at least until marriage. There is nothing on record about the level of education attained by the 2nd appellant and the chances of her becoming financially independent. Even though she cannot be treated as a permanent dependent, the contention raised by the Insurance Company for denying compensation to the 2nd appeallant based on her age is not tenable. Going by the higher multiplier applicable for the 2nd appellant we feel at least the multiplier of 13 applicable based on the age of the deceased should be adopted for the purpose of grant of compensation for loss of dependency. Going by 13 as the multiplier and Rs. 2,000 as the net notional income after deducting Rs. 1,000 as required for maintenance of the deceased, we fix the compensation for loss of dependency at Rs. 3,12,000 as against Rs. 1,50,000 fixed by the M.A.C.T. We find force in the contention of the appellants that the compensation granted for loss of consortium to the 1st appellant and loss of love and affection to the 2nd appellant are also inadequate. We grant an additional amount of Rs. 10,000 each under these two heads as well. This appeal is allowed by modifying the award of the M.A.C.T. to the above extent. There will be a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the additional compensation with interest at 71/2% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.