Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tara Chand And Ors vs Bakshish Singh And Ors on 19 December, 2023
Author: Lalit Batra
Bench: Lalit Batra
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163253
2023:PHHC:163253
FAO No.5447of 2008 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.5447 of 2008 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 19.12.2023.
Tara Chand and others ....Appellants.
Versus
Bakhshish Singh and others ....Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
----
Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for appellants.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.5-Insurance Company.
****
Lalit Batra, J.
CM-23172-CII-2023
This application under Section 151 CPC has been filed by
applicants/appellants for actual date of hearing in the main appeal.
For the reasons enumerated in the application, the same is
allowed. The main appeal is taken on Board today itself.
FAO-5447-2008 (O&M)
By way of this appeal, appellants-Tara Chand and others seek
enhancement of compensation awarded to them by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, "Tribunal"), vide Award dated
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163253
2023:PHHC:163253
20.08.2008 passed in MACT Case No.000035 of 28.04.2004, on account of
death of Kamlesh Rani (wife of appellant No.1 and mother of appellants No.2
and 3), caused in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 26.03.2004,
whereby appellants/claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.3,70,000/-
along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition
till its realization.
2. The submissions made by Ms. Ekta Thakur, learned counsel for
appellants and Mr. Vinod Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.5-
Insurance Company have been heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants argued that Kamlesh
Rani (since deceased) while working as maid servant and managing house
hold works/affairs and looking after husband as well as minor children used to
earn Rs.5,000/- per month but learned Tribunal wrongly assessed her income
at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and then arbitrarily deducted 1/3rd of the
income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased without
considering the fact that she was a married lady and her husband and children
were the claimants and no deduction towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased was called for while taking the value of the services rendered by
her towards family as a homemaker. To support her argument, she has relied
upon Paramjit Singh and another vs. Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga and others,
2014(4) RCR (Civil) 895. Learned counsel further contended that no amount
was added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects and learned
Tribunal applied the multiplier of '15', whereas multiplier of '17' was
applicable. The amount awarded as funeral expenses and loss of consortium is
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163253
2023:PHHC:163253
on the lower side. Even no amount was awarded to the appellants for loss of
love and affection. She further contended that learned Tribunal also erred in
awarding interest at the rate of 8% per annum, whereas it should have been
awarded at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim
petition.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5-Insurance
Company contended that keeping in view the evidence available on the record,
learned Tribunal had rightly assessed Rs.3,000/- per month as monthly value
of services rendered by deceased Kamlesh Rani towards her family and in this
scenario, question of grant of future prospects did not arise at all. He further
contended that there is no iota of merit in the instant appeal and the same may
be dismissed.
5. Having due regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the
parties, it is observed that learned Tribunal after having gone through the
evidence available on the record rightly came to the conclusion that
appellants/claimants could not prove that Kamlesh Rani (since deceased)
while working as maid servant and cook used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month.
However, she was proved to be a housewife. The role of a housewife includes
managing budgets, co-ordinating activities, balancing accounts, helping
children with education, managing help at home, nursing care etc. We have
come by a gradual acknowledgment of gender equality as a constitutional
scheme and the increasing recognition of the value of contribution of
womanhood to the sum of economic prosperity and social facility.
Housewives have obtained a new moniker as homemakers. Since housewife
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163253
2023:PHHC:163253
takes care of all the requirements of her husband and children including
cooking of food, washing of clothes etc., she teaches small children and
provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. All these chores
could be performed by a maid servant, but she can never be a substitute for a
wife/mother, who renders selfless service to her husband and children.
Therefore, the dependents are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the
loss of gratuitous services rendered by housewife. Thus, income of housewife
is assessed as monthly value of her services and not her monthly income and,
therefore, the concept of deduction from her personal services cannot be
applied. To this effect, reliance can also be placed on ruling Paramjit Singh
and another's case (supra). In a given situation, Kamlesh Rani (since
deceased) being a housewife, it can be conveniently held that she must be
rendering gratuitous services amounting to Rs.3,000/- per month towards her
family and the annual gross services of Kamlesh Rani (since deceased) are
assessed at Rs.36,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12). Since above said amount of
Rs.3,000/- per month has been assessed as monthly value of services rendered
by Kamlesh Rani (since deceased), no amount is required to be added towards
future prospects. However, learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the
income of the deceased towards her personal and living expenses which needs
modification as in Paramjit Singh and another's case (supra), it was held
that since Rs.3,000/- per month is assessed as monthly value of services
rendered and not monthly income and, therefore, concept of deduction cannot
be applied. In this scenario, while calculating the notional income of the
housewife, the entire income should be taken as dependency of the legal heirs
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163253
2023:PHHC:163253
without applying any cut. As the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of
accident, multiplier of '16' instead of '15' should have been applied by learned
Tribunal. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the appellants-claimants
towards dependency comes to Rs.5,76,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 16).
6. In addition to the amount of Rs.5,76,000/- calculated towards
dependency, appellant/claimants are entitled to compensation under
conventional heads. Learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards
funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas as per
ratio of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others,
2017(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 1009, an amount of Rs.16,500/- is to be awarded to
appellants/claimants towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.16,500/-
is to be awarded to appellants/claimants on account of loss of estate and an
amount of Rs.44,000/- is to be awarded to appellant/claimant No.1 on account
of loss of consortium. Thus, amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded under the head of
funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.16,500/-, whereas the amount of
Rs.5,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium is enhanced to Rs.44,000/-.
The appellants/claimants are also entitled to compensation of Rs.16,500/- on
account of loss of estate. In the above premise, the appellants/claimants are
held entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,53,000/-, as indicated above,
instead of Rs.3,70,000/-, which was awarded by learned Tribunal.
7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is partly
allowed and the award dated 20.08.2008 passed by learned Tribunal is
modified. Appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of
Rs.6,53,000/-. Meaning thereby that appellants/claimants are entitled to
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163253
2023:PHHC:163253
enhanced compensation of Rs.2,83,000/- (Rs.6,53,000/- minus Rs.3,70,000/-),
alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till its actual realization. The enhanced amount so quantified shall be
deposited within eight weeks from the date of this judgment and paid to the
appellants/claimants according to law. However, rest of the terms would
remain the same as settled by learned Tribunal, vide Award dated 20.08.2008.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(LALIT BATRA)
JUDGE
19.12.2023
vp/jitender
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163253
6 of 6
