L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The National Insurance Company Ltd., filed this Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'), assailing the award dated 16-9-2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P. No. 1724 of 2003.
2. On 25-5-2003 the 1 st respondent and his wife Shantharnma were travelling in an Auto bearing No. AP-28-V-22 from Lingampally to Mehdipatnam. When the auto reached the campus of Hyderabad Central University, a lorry bearing No. AAT 1789, owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the appellant, is said to have come in a rash and negligent manner, in the opposite direction; and hit the auto, on the wrong side. Shanthamma received multiple injuries and died on the spot. Crime No. 201 of 2003 was registered by the Chanda Nagar Police Station, under Section 304A of I.P.C. against the Driver of the lorry.
3. The respondents 1 to 3 (for short 'the respondents), who are the husband, daughter and son of Shathamma, filed O.P., claiming a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs as compensation. They pleaded that Shanthamma was running a roadside hotel, opposite to the Indian institute of Information Technology, Gachibowil, and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. It was pleaded that on account of her death, the family was deprived of her household management, and financial assistance.
4. The 4th respondent did not contest the O.P. The appellant alone filed a counter -affidavit, denying all the material averments in the O.P. The existence of insurance coverage was disputed and it was pleaded that the driver of the lorry did not hold valid driving licence, at the relevant point of time. The compensation claimed by the respondents was stated as excessive.
5. Through its order under appeal, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,67,000/- as compensation, with interest at 7.5% per annum, and apportioned the same among respondents.
6. Sri T. Ramulu, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents failed to prove the income of the deceased, and that there was no basis for the Tribunal in treating it as Rs. 3,000/- per month. He contends that, in such cases, the income prescribed in Schedule II, namely Rs. 15.000/-per annum, ought to have been taken into account. He further submits that the O.P. was defective, inasmuch as the owner and insurer of the auto were not impleaded in the O.P.
7. Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in determining the annual income of the deceased, and that the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. He contends that even assuming that the deceased was not earning any income, the loss, on account of the death of a housewife, cannot be ignored. Learned Counsel points out that the evidence on record clearly disclosed that the accident occurred wholly on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry, and that the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.
8. From the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant, two points arise for consideration in this appeal, viz., whether the O.P. was defective, for the reason that the owner and insurer of the auto were not impleaded in the O.P., and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
9. The first aspect would have assumed much relevance, if there was any scope, for the driver of the auto was also being held responsible for the accident. Even if the liability for the accident was apportioned between the drivers of the lorry, and the auto, the failure of the respondents to implead the owner and insurer of the auto, would not have any impact on the liability fastened to the appellant. For instance, if the drivers of the lorry and auto were held responsible to the extent of 50% each, the only consequence of non-impleading the owner and driver of the auto would have been, that the respondents could not have recovered the corresponding amount, from the owner or insurer of the auto. The liability of the appellant to pay the compensation awarded against them, would have remained unaffected. The Tribunal held that the driver of the lorry alone was liable for the accident, and fastened the entire liability upon the 4th respondent, and the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant is not able to persuade this Court to take any different view. Therefore, it hardly makes any difference, whether the owner and insurer of the auto were impleaded or not, in the O.P.
10. The second aspect is argued with a greater amount of vehemence. It is urged that though a vague plea was taken in the claim petition, that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by running a roadside hotel, absolutely no evidence was placed before the Tribunal, and still, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs. 3,000/-. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Bontu Venkata Rao v. Kalla Venkataramana 2003 (2) ALT 572 : 2003 (1) An. W.R. 376 : 2003 (3) ALD 314 As in the instant case, the victim of the accident in that case was also a housewife. In the O.P., out of which the said case arose, the Tribunal refused to award any compensation against the insurer, on the ground that the driver of the scooter, that was involved in the accident, did not own valid driving licence. The said finding was reversed. The plea of the husband of the deceased that he was dependent upon the income of his wife; was repelled. After holding that compensation is payable for the dependents of a housewife, who died in an accident, a learned single Judge of this Court observed as under, in the matter of quantification of the compensation: Para-6: So the compensation, should be assessed on the basis that there has been loss of service to the family which can be effectively substituted by engaging any person by paying salary or wages. That loss to the family shall have to be quantified in terms of damages. If the earning of the deceased is believed then the supplemental income to the family should be the basis to be quantified as compensation. In this case, ignoring this legal position the Tribunal has fallen into an error by assessing the compensation on the premise of the dependency of the husband and the minor daughter on the deceased.
Para-7: As discussed hereinabove, the services that have been rendered by the deceased to the family shall have to be quantified. It is in the evidence that the work place where the deceased used to work has been closed for the last eight months preceding the date of accident and the death of the deceased. If the claimant was expected to have engaged a domestic servant for rendering services he would have definitely paid wages to the servant at the rate of Rs. 30/-per day. The deceased in this case died at an age of 30 years. Her assistance to the family would be only for a particular period beyond which it cannot be expected of. But her assistance to the husband would be continued as long as both of them are alive. In that view of the matter, it is loss to the claimant throughout his life. He having been aged 35 years at the appropriate time would have received the assistance of the deceased for another period of 35 years having regard to the longevity that has been fixed in this country on an average basis. As years pass on it would be reduced and at a latter part of the life it is nothing but a mere companionship than assistance. In that view of the matter, the compensation can be granted in a lump sum for the loss of services to be rendered by the deceased to the family and services towards the domestic chores at Rs. 25,000/-.
11. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the same principle must be applied in the instant case, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal must be reduced accordingly. In its order, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar : (2001)IILLJ1559SC wherein it was held that the loss, resulting on account of the death of a housewife, must be assessed, at least, at Rs. 3,000/-per month. Learned Counsel for the appellant attempts to distinguish the said case, on the ground that it related to award of compensation to the victims of fire accident, and not those in motor vehicle accidents.
12. If one looks at the ratio, relied upon by Supreme Court, in Lata Wadhwa's case : (2001)IILLJ1559SC it becomes evident that the Supreme Court proceeded to lay down the principle, which cannot be restricted to the cases of fire accidents alone. The following passage from the said judgment would make it very clear:
Para-10: So far as the deceased house wives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs. 12,000/-per annum in cases of some and Rs. 10,000/- for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even the absence of such dates and taking into consideration in the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, it should be Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000 per annum.
13. Further, except that the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') provides for a separate machinery for adjudication of claims, for compensation, for the victims of accident, the parameters for determination are, by and large, common for fatal accidents, and those arising under the said Act. It would be somewhat difficult, particularly in the Indian context, to equate the status of the housewife, to that of a maidservant. A housewife happens to be virtually de facto head of the family, in maintaining and running it, even if the income is contributed by the male members. One just cannot imagine the structure of a family, without the role of a housewife in it. It would not be an exaggeration to say, that the housewife constitutes the basis in the whole edifice of the family. The amount of love and affection, which she exhibits to the various members of the family, in the required proportions, nurtures the family. An attempt to assess the value of services of a housewife in terms of money would be a misadventure. No one (can) claim that he had assessed the value of the services of a housewife, in terms of money. Though not, in so many terms, the Hon'ble Supreme Court conveyed the same message. Since the persons whoa re deprived of such benefit are to be compensated, an exercise, however must be undertaken.
14. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the application of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court is confined to the claimants in fatal accident cases, and not to those, under the Motor Vehicles Act; is difficult to be accepted. In Rangappa v. B.L Mahalingappa : 2004(1)KarLJ527 a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that, taking the earnings of a deceased, housewife, at Rs. 3,000/- per month cannot be said to be imaginary or incredible. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in its judgment in Smt. Neelam Sharma v. Telco 2005 AIHC 1358 (D.B.) (Jharkhand) applied the same figures. In B.M. Oriental Fire and General InsuranceCo. Ltd. v. Dr. C.C.O. Reddy 2004 (4) ALD 383 (D.B.) a Division Bench of this Court held that the love and affection, and the personal care and attention, which a housewife exhibits towards her children and husband, must be taken into account, in the matter of awarding compensation, on account of death of a woman. The principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa's case (2 supra) was applied by this Court in Brahmarambha v. Brunda Satyanarayana 2003 (96) ALD (NOC) 199 to a case, which arose under the Motor Vehicles Act. The attention of the learned single Judge, who decided the case in Bontu Venkata Rao v. Kalla Venkataramana (1 supra), does not appear to have been drawn to the said decisions.
15. It is no doubt true, that in Schedule II of the Act, it is directed that, where no material exists, for determination of the income of the injured, or deceased, in any accident, it can be taken at Rs. 15,000/- per year. The same cannot be applied to the instant case, since what is being assessed is not the income, but money value of love and affection, or care and caution, which, the respondents were receiving from the deceased, during her lifetime.
16. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error, or mistake, in applying the principle laid down in LataWadhwa's case (2 supra).
17. Hence, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.