Nachhatar Kaur vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation
2022 Latest Caselaw 12133 P&H

FAO-765-2003                                                    -1-

312    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                         FAO-765-2003
                                         Date of Decision: 23.09.2022

NACHHATAR KAUR                                             ......... Appellant

                                     Versus


PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                                                                 ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :    Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate with
             Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate
             for respondent No.1.
                    ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The appellant through instant appeal is seeking enhancement

of compensation awarded vide award dated 07.11.2002 passed by

learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal'), Patiala,

whereby learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.97,000/-/-

alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on account of injuries/suffered by

appellant.

2. The facts emerging from record are that on 23.06.1999,

appellant Nachhatar Kaur was travelling in PRTC bus bearing

registration No.PB-11-E-9631. The aforesaid bus met with an accident

with a tempo which was coming from opposite side. The appellant in this

accident received injuries and she remained admitted in Rajindra

Hospital, Patiala from 23.06.1999 to 25.06.1999, 31.08.1999 to

22.10.1999, 11.11.1999 to 17.11.1999 and 08.02.2000 to 21.02.2000. In

1 of 3

the accident right leg femur was fractured and a rod was inserted. The

appellant suffered 25% permanent disability. The appellant filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the

'1988 Act'), seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by her.

Learned Tribunal vide order 07.11.2002 awarded a sum of Rs.97,000/-

on account of injuries suffered by appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

appellant is suffering from 25% permanent disability and she had

remained hospitalized for a quite long time, thus, she had suffered lot of

pain and mental agony apart from incurring huge expenses on the

treatment. Learned Tribunal ignoring the injuries suffered by appellant as

well as pain and mental agony has awarded a small amount of

Rs.97,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the

factum of accident as well as injuries suffered by appellant, however,

submits that amount of compensation awarded is just and reasonable as

appellant had suffered 25% permanent disability and there is no evidence

of income. She is a house wife, thus, income of the husband cannot be

considered for the purpose of determination of the compensation.

5. I have perused the record of the case and heard arguments of

both sides.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a more recent judgment in Kirti

and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2021) 2 SCC

166, has elaborately dealt with question of income of house makers.

Hon'ble Supreme Court has dilated on the issue and held that it would be

unfair, unjustified to conclude that women, who are not working in

2 of 3

offices but taking care of all family affairs are not non-working and their

income should not be assessed minimum income. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has considered that the lady staying at home performs a number of

jobs which include making food for the family members, taking care of

husband, children, old parents apart from miscellaneous day to day

activities.

7. Keeping in mind observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I

am of the considered opinion that it would be unjust and unfair to

consider income of appellant negligible or treat her a lady without

income. The appellant has inevitably suffered 25% permanent disability

and she had remained hospitalized for a quite long time. At the time of

accident, she was 40 years old. She had suffered a lot of pain, mental

agony which is quite evident from the long hospitalization period as well

as injuries suffered by her. It is well known fact a lady is back bone of

the home and the nature of injury is such that she would have not been

able to take care of the family members. In such facts and circumstances,

I deem it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation from

Rs.97,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. The respondent is directed to make

payment enhanced amount alongwith interest as awarded by learned

Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today.

                                                ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                       JUDGE
23.09.2022
Ali
                    Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No
                       Whether Reportable        Yes/No




                                 3 of 3