HC dismisses insurance firm’s plea seeking reconsideration of compensation amount: ‘Contribution of mother cannot be computed in terms of money’

The same year, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, challenging the MACT order, filed a petition in the high court stating no accident had taken place in the manner as pleaded in the claim petition. Even though, in the claim petition, it was asserted that the deceased has dairy business, but no satisfactory evidence for same was brought on record.

The insurance company further argued that no FIR was lodged in the case and only a DDR was filed and that too had no negligence spelt out on the part of bus driver.

The Bench of Justice Archana Puri, on hearing the matter, said, “Even though it is submitted, at the behest of insurance company, that the driver of the offending bus was not at fault, but the aforesaid submission is not tenable. From evidence brought on record, it stands amply established that Paramjit was in the process of getting down from the bus when the driver started speeding and the accident took place. This manner of putting the bus in motion when a passenger was in the process of getting off the bus speaks volumes about the rashness and negligence on part of the driver.”

Regarding the computation of amount awarded to the family, the HC said that the fact remains that the deceased woman was married and had two minor children, who are physically-challenged to the extent of 75 per cent and 100 per cent, and the deceased woman was taking care of them. “It is pertinent to mention that the service of a mother/wife is available 24 hours. Her duties are never fixed. Courts have recognised that contribution made by the wife/mother to the house is invaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of money. A housewife/homemaker does not only work by the clock and she is in constant attendance of the family throughout and such services rendered by the homemaker, has to be necessarily kept in view, while calculating the loss, in the eventuality of death of the homemaker,” Justice Puri said.

The bench added that the deceased was 35 years old at the time of the accident and it is quite obvious that taking care of two physically-challenged children must have required her to have extra strength. “There cannot be substitute for a mother’s love and affection with which the children were being looked after. Considering the same, the value of services rendered by the deceased ought to be more than what the tribunal has taken under consideration,” the HC added.

Thus stating that the compensation amount of Rs 16.52 lakh, so granted by the tribunal, is the most appropriate one and calls for no interference, the HC dismissed the appeal of the insurance firm.