The New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Annie & Ors.

1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 24.05.2013, whereby learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.19,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident. He was working as a Supervisor and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. He left behind, wife, two sons and parents. However, Ld. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/towards funeral expenses which are on the higher side. 2014:DHC:1400

3. Ld. Counsel further submits that deceased was working as a Supervisor in the Private Firm. However, the claimants failed to prove that he was in the permanent job. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has erred in adding 50% in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.

4. Lastly, Ld. Counsel argued that Ld. Tribunal has erred in granting compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards notional loss of care, attention and expenses while relying upon the view taken by this court. Ld. Counsel submits that the view taken by this court is applicable only in the case of wife. However, in the present case, the deceased was the husband. Therefore, the compensation towards this head cannot be granted.

5. As far as the non-pecuniary damages are concerned, it cannot be denied that due to inflation, the value of the rupee is getting down day-byday and this court consistently relying upon the dictum of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563 while granting compensation on these heads. Therefore, I do not find any merit on this issue. Same is accordingly fails.

6. As the issue of future prospects is concerned, this issue has been dealt by this Court in the case bearing MAC. APP. No.846/2011 titled as ‘ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors.’, decided on 30.09.2013, while relying upon the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. (supra). Therefore, I do not find any merit on this issue also.

7. In the present era, the husband and wife are performing their duties equally and equitably. Both are doing gratuitous services. There cannot be a gender bias. The time has gone when some of the services were meant only for wife, but in the present days, the husband is also maintaining the home and doing all gratuitous services in the routine manner. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the compensation granted on account of notional loss of care, attention and expenses.

8. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed.

9. The statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant.

10. The balance compensation amount, if any, be released in favour of the respondents / claimants on taking steps by them. CM. No. 2363/2014 With the dismissal of the instant appeal itself, instant application has become infructuous and dismissed as such.

SURESH KAIT, J MARCH 13, 2014 jg/RS