S.K Mahajan, J.:— Admit.
2. Matter being short, the same has been heard with the consent of the parties and disposed of by this order.
3. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of the wife of appellant No. 1 and mother of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 who died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellants is that the Claims Tribunal without taking into consideration the loss of dependency and the multiplier applicable in the case has awarded a very meagre compensation of Rs. 50,000.
4. Deceased was a graduate in science and was a housewife. It is contended by Mr. Popli appearing on behalf of appellant that in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC), the Apex Court has observed that in the absence of data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, the value of such services should be taken at Rs. 3,000 per month or Rs. 36,000 per annum. It is submitted that applying the ratio in Lata Wadhwa's case Rs. 3,000 per month should have been taken as the income of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 17 in terms of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation to the appellants.
5. While it is true that in Lata Wadhwa's case, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC), the Apex Court had estimated the income of the housewife to be Rs. 3,000 per month, however, that judgment was given in the peculiar facts of that case taking into consideration not only the status of the families but also the concession given by counsel appearing on behalf of the employer. In my opinion, the estimated income of a housewife taken in Lata Wadhwa's case cannot be taken to be the income in every case. However, this court can take recourse to the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act to estimate as to what should have been the income of the housewife. It is not denied that the housewife also renders multifarious services in managing the affairs of the family and the same can no doubt be estimated in terms of money. In terms of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act in the case of persons who have no income, the notional income can be taken as Rs. 15,000 per annum. In the case of the housewife as well, in my opinion, this amount can be taken to be her income. The Second Schedule was, however, inserted in the year 1994. At the time of assessing compensation taking this to be the notional income of the deceased, this court has to consider the rise in the cost of living and the inflation since the time this Schedule was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act. The minimum wages of a skilled worker in the year 1994 when the Second Schedule was inserted was Rs. 1,784 whereas in the year 2003 the same had gone up to Rs. 2,783. There is thus about 60 per cent increase in the minimum wages during the last nine years.
6. The deceased at the time of death was 31 years of age and in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for arriving at just compensation payable to the appellants, the multiplier of 17 is required to be applied. If the notional income as per the Second Schedule in the year 1994 was to be taken at Rs. 15,000 per annum, this court would not be in error in estimating that after about 17 years the notional income would have at least doubled. Average notional income of the deceased would thus come to Rs. 22,500 per year. Taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 22,500 and deducting ⅓rd from the same towards her personal expenses, the loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs. 15,000 per year. Applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs. 2,55,000. Adding to this, the conventional figure of Rs. 25,000 towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, etc., total compensation payable to the family would come to Rs. 2,80,000.
7. I, accordingly, allow this appeal, modify the impugned award and direct that the appellants will be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,80,000. In the facts of this case, I also direct that the appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal till payment.
8. Though plea had been taken by the insurance company before the Tribunal that it is not liable to pay compensation as the insured had committed breach of the conditions of contract of insurance inasmuch as the insured had permitted the driver, who did not have a valid driving licence in his possession, to drive the offending vehicle and was also proved before the Tribunal that the driving licence in possession of the driver was forged, however, the Tribunal did not dwell on this point as the interim award was made the final award and insurance company was directed to pay the same. In my view, as it has been proved before the Tribunal that the driver at the time of the accident did not have a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, the insurance company, though it has to satisfy the award in the first instance, will be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the insured. I, therefore, give liberty to the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation, after it is paid to the appellant, from the insured. With these observations, this appeal stands disposed of.
9. Appeal allowed.