1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MVA) No.104 of 2012 with FAO (MVA) No.261 of 2012 Decided on: 1.7.2014 FAO (MVA) No. 104 of 2012 National Insurance Company …Appellant. Vs Geeta Ram & ors …Respondents. _________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate No. 1 & 2: For the Respondent No.3: Mr. O.P. Negi, Advocate. FAO (MVA) No. 261 of 2012 Sh. Geeta Ram & anr …Appellants. Vs Smt.Raj Sharma & anr …Respondents. _________________________________________________________ __ For the Appellants: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. O.P. Negi, Advocate No.1 For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. V.K.Sharma, J. (Oral) Since both these appeals arise out of a common award dated 5.11.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 2 relating to the death of deceased Smt. Sudesh Sharma in a motor vehicle accident on 21.2.2009, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Whereas FAO (MVA) No.104 of 2012 has been preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the tune of `5,85,000/-(rupees Five lacs, Eighty five thousand only), alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of the awarded amount, FAO (MVA) No.261/2012 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Keeping in view the narrow compass in which the controversy between the parties lies, it may not be necessary to set out the facts of the case in its entirety. However, suffice it to say that the accident involving the offending vehicle Maruti Car bearing registration No. HP-11-2687 belonging to respondent No.1 had taken place near Khanog at Neerath, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, HP, on 21.2.2009, at about 8.00 PM, allegedly owing to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said vehicle, who had also unfortunately died in that very accident. 4. The claimants before the learned Tribunal are husband and sons of the deceased. As per para-6 of the petition, monthly income of the deceased was stated to be as under: `11,000/- per month. The deceased was doing the household jobs in the family and her financial contribution can safely be said to be about `4,000/- per month. In addition to this she had regularly monthly income of `4,000/- per month from the STD Booth which was 3 registered in her name as owner. Further she had an additional income of `3,000/- per month from selling milk. Thus, her total income was `11,000/- 5. However, during trial, the claimants failed to lead any evidence to show that the deceased was either having a monthly income of `4,000/-from a STD Booth registered in her name as owner or `3,000/- per month by selling milk. In such circumstances, it is vehemently contended on behalf of the Insurance company by its learned counsel Mr. Ashwani K.Sharma, Advocate, that even as per the averments set up on behalf of the petitioners total monthly income of the deceased could be taken only at `4,000/- being her contribution to the family in terms of money as a housewife. 6. The learned Tribunal, while assessing income of the deceased at `5,000/- per month, has adopted the following reasoning vide para 14 of the impugned award dated 5.11.20111 under issue No.2: “Issue No.2 14. Although the petitioners have alleged in the petition that the deceased used to earn `11,000/- per month by doing household work, selling milk and running of STD Booth, no cogent and convincing evidence has been brought on the record in support of this plea. Neither the license of the STD Booth allegedly run by the deceased has been proved on the record nor any documentary evidence in the shape of bank account etc. of the deceased has been brought on the record. Hence, the oral evidence adduced by the petitioners cannot be said to be sufficient for recording findings that the deceased use to earn `11,000/- per month by doing 4 household work, selling milk and running STD Booth. However, the evidence on record shows that the age of the deceased at the time of her death was 44 years and she was working as a house wife. Since, the deceased was working as a house wife, her income can be assumed as `5,000/- per month. The reference is made of AIR 2010 (NOC) 7 (H.P) Suman Lata Kuthiala & Ors etc. V. Piyare Lal & Ors etc, wherein it has been held as under: (A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988),S. 168- Assessment of compensation-Victim, a house wife, suffered injuries in accident and remained in bed for six months-She had no fixed income-Her income assessed as `5,000/- per month-For pain and suffering compensation of `10,000/- per month awarded for six months- Total compensation of `1,07,000/- granted.” 7. In support of the above findings, learned counsel for the claimants, Mr.Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, has referred to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported as Arun Kumar Agrawal & anr Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd & ors (2010) 9 SCC 218, head note C, paras 23, 26, 27 and 35 to 39. The observations made by the Hon’ble Court in para 37 of the judgment can be beneficially taken note of and are reproduced below: “37. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that while in his deposition, Appellant 1 had categorically stated that the deceased was earning `50,000/- per annum by paintings and handicrafts, the respondents did not lead any evidence to controvert the same. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal and the High Court altogether ignored the income 5 of the deceased. The Tribunal did advert to the Second Schedule of the Act and observed that the income of the deceased could be assessed at `5,000/- per month (`60,000 per annum) because the income of her spouse was `15,416 per month and then held that after making deduction, the total loss of dependency could be `6 lakhs. However, without any tangible reason, the Tribunal decided to reduce the amount of compensation by observing that the deceased was actually a non-earning member and the amount of compensation would be too much. The High Court went a step further and dismissed the appeal by erroneously presuming that neither of the claimants was dependent upon the deceased and the services rendered by her could be estimated as `1250 per month.” 8. Though in the case in hand, the claimants have neither pleaded nor proved as to what was the income of petitioner No.1, Sh. Geeta Ram, who being husband of the deceased is her spouse and keeping his income in view, income of the deceased could be quantified to the extent of 1/3rd in terms of the entry at serial No.6 of the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. However, even if the averments regarding other sources of income of the deceased are ignored altogether, the fact remains that she was a house wife. It is a matter of common knowledge that in our country and particularly in our State and in the area, to which the deceased belonged, a house wife is a constant source of love and affection, nurturing and caretaker for the family. She works right from the early morning till late in the night. She looks after the husband, 6 children, in-laws and other relations in the family and is a perennial source of care, love and affection, besides cooking, cleaning, washing and maintaining the entire household. She also tends the milch and agricultural cattle, looks after the kitchen garden and family lands. It is a matter of common knowledge that in our State minimum wage of a daily wager is not less than `150/ in the government sector and even more in case a labourer is engaged privately. In any case, services of a house maker when quantified in terms of money, would certainly be much more than that of a labourer or a domestic hand who works within fixed hours from 8-9 a.m till 5-6 p.m only. In the given facts and circumstances and overall view of the matter, it shall not be unsafe to quantify daily contribution of a house maker to the family in terms of money at least within the range of `250/- to `500/-, i.e. equal to `7500- `15000/-. 10. In the present case, monthly income of the deceased has been assessed by the learned Tribunal at `5,000/-, which is absolutely in line with the dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal & anr (supra). It being so, no fault can be found with this aspect of the matter. It is equally true for the Insurance Company which is seeking to slash the amount of compensation as well as the claimants who want enhancement. 11. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the learned Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 14, primarily taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr 2009(6) SCC 121. Even as 7 per the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier of 15 has to be applied where age of the deceased is above 40 years, but not exceeding 45 years. Here the objection on behalf of the Insurance Company is that though no doubt the deceased was aged 44 years, yet her husband, claimant No.1 was of the age of more than 50 years and both the sons out of whom one has unfortunately died in the interregnum, had already attained the age of majority before the accident. 12. In such circumstances, Mr. Ashwani K.Sharma, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the multiplier ought not to have been more than 11 keeping in view the age of claimant No.1, husband of the deceased. However, here even if it is assumed for a moment for the sake of argument that the multiplier may be slightly on a higher side, but while taking into consideration the latest law on the subject handed out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh & others Vs. Rajbir Singh & others (2013) 9 SCC 54, laying down that compensation on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses ought to be in the range of `1.00 lakh and `25,000/- respectively, which in the present case, have been awarded only @ Rs. `10,000/- and `15,000/- respectively, the shortfall in the grant of compensation on these scores would take care of the aspect regarding the multiplier being slightly on the higher side. 13. In view of the above, it shall not be unsafe to conclude that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and on an overall view of the matter, neither there is any lawful cause or basis for 8 slashing of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal or to enhance the same as the Insurance Company and the claimants, respectively, beseech this court. 14. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( V.K. Sharma ), Judge. July 1, 2014. (sl) 9