Delhi HC Cuts Compensation To Rs 21.71 Lakh For Homemaker Killed As Bus Moved While She Alighted

On 2 September 2012, Rajani died after falling from an RTV bus when its driver moved the vehicle as she was alighting.

The MACT awarded her family ₹22,05,740 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The insurer appealed seeking a reduction; the claimants cross-appealed seeking enhancement and correction of the compensation calculation.

The High Court reconsidered Rajani’s age, the notional income attributed to her as a homemaker, conventional heads of compensation, deductions for personal expenses and the applicable interest rate.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, future prospects and conventional heads of compensation are to be assessed in accordance with the standardized principles laid down by the Supreme Court; the deceased’s personal expenses are deducted when calculating dependency.

Kirti v. Oriental Insurance recognizes that a homemaker’s notional income must be assessed justly, using a method suited to the facts.

Shishu Pal v. Surjeet recognizes loss of domestic care as a distinct head, subject to the conditions identified in that decision.

Under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, interest may be awarded on compensation, with fixed-deposit rates serving as a relevant guide.

The Court accepted the MLC, post-mortem report and electoral-roll evidence over the discrepant voter ID, and assessed Rajani’s age at 23; it therefore applied a multiplier of 18 and future prospects of 40%.

In light of the homemaker principles in Kirti and the approach in Uma Rani, it fixed her notional monthly income at ₹10,000, rather than minimum wages.

It declined to award loss of domestic care under Shishu Pal because the requisite three heads were not all met in this case.

Applying Pranay Sethi, it deducted one-third for personal expenses, awarded consortium of ₹40,000 to each of the three claimants, and allowed ₹15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses; it deleted the award for loss of care and guidance.

It increased interest to 9% per annum, having regard to prevailing fixed-deposit rates.

It issued directions for deposit or release of any balance, depending on whether the amount already deposited was below or above the revised compensation, and disposed of both appeals.