While increasing the compensation as well as the interest rate of compensation given to the wife for the accident of her deceased husband, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana noted that the role of a homemaker is immeasurable and deserves profound acknowledgment.
Brief Facts:
The current appeal has been filed for modification of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It seeks the enhancement of the amount of compensation on account of the death of Sarwan Kumar, the deceased husband of the appellant – Smt. Daya.
The facts of the case are that in 2005, the deceased left for Delhi in his truck from Punjab, and at around 9 pm, one canter coming on the left side of the road dashed the deceased’s truck and Sarwan Kumar died on the spot. It was contended that the said canter was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
Later on, a claim petition was filed under section 166 and section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-, but after the considerations and calculations done by the court, a compensation of Rs. 3,79,000/- was calculated to be paid. Now. The appellant has filed the present petition has been filed for the enhancement of the award.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the Learned tribunal has erred in determining the monthly salary of the deceased and has failed to enhance the income on account of future prospects has also deducted the personal expenses on the higher side and has failed to grant any compensation on account of loss of estate.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the Ld. the tribunal has rightly determined the monthly salary of the deceased as per the prevailing wages of laborers at the time of the accident and there is no need to interfere in the amount of compensation awarded by the Ld. Tribunal.
Observations of the Court:
The Court first noted that the income of the deceased should have been assessed as per the DC rates prevalent at the time of the accident. It was further noted that in the current case, the sole claimant is a widow, who has been thrust into a position of considerable responsibility and now she has to ensure the well-being of her family. The court then noted that a homemaker has a lot of responsibilities which include a lot of different tasks and they have to operate tirelessly around the clock. This contribution of a homemaker to the intricate fabric of daily life is immeasurable and deserves profound acknowledgment. It was accordingly concluded that being a homemaker, widow Daya had to not only look after herself but also manage her home and if a deduction of half is made to the deceased’s income it would cause a lot of challenges in the life of the widow and will cause extreme hardships to her. In the interest of justice, the court was of the view that deduction for personal expenses in the present case should be 1/3rd of the income of the deceased, and the sole claimant – widow should be entitled to the remaining 2/3rd of the income of the deceased. The court then made a comparative table of the amount assessed by the tribunal and the court. The court then accordingly changed the compensation as well as the interest rate.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed part modification of the award and the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Daya @ Dayawanti v. Arjun and others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Vaishisth
Case no.: FAO-3236-2007
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Bhisham K. Majoka, Advocate the appellant(s).
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for Respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
