Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishna Etc vs Rupesh Kumar Etc on 20 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
FAO No.23 of 2014 1 2024:PHHC:040572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
107 FAO No.23 of 2014
Date of Decision : 20.03.2024
Krishna and Others ....Appellants
VERSUS
Rupesh Kumar and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded vide award dated
22.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').
2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by
the Tribunal are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for
the sake of brevity.
3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following
compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income Rs.4,000/-
2 Annual Income [Rs.4,000 x 12] = Rs.48,000/-
3 Multiplier of 11 [Rs.48,000 x 11] = Rs.5,28,000/-
4 Loss of consortium Rs.20,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.5,48,000/-
Interest 7.5% per annum
integrity of this order/judgment
FAO No.23 of 2014 2 2024:PHHC:040572
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
the deceased in the present case was a housewife and that her income has
erroneously been assessed as Rs.4,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimant-
appellants would further contend that the income of the deceased ought to
have been assessed as Rs.5,356/- per month, which were the minimum
wages at the relevant point of time. Though the multiplier has rightly been
applied, however, no amount has been awarded under the conventional
heads and further the amount awarded under the head 'loss of consortium' is
also not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and in support of her contention she has relied upon judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]; Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.
[(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S
General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].
5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company has contended that sufficient amount of compensation has been
awarded by the Tribunal and there is no scope of any future enhancement.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased, who was a housewife, as Rs.4,000/- per month. However, there is
no basis for assessing the same @ Rs.4,000/- per month. A housewife does
much more than a single labourer can do. Infact, she performs multiple
functions in the house i.e. cooking for the family, cleaning the house,
washing clothes and utensils, the list is endless. A housewife is also a
integrity of this order/judgment
FAO No.23 of 2014 3 2024:PHHC:040572
caretaker of her children as well as all the members of the house are taken
care of by a housewife and hence her income cannot be equated with that of
a labourer. Thus, the notional income as assessed by the Tribunal @
Rs.4,000/- per month is on the lower side, which ought to have been
equivalent to the minimum wages of a skilled labourer prevailing at the
relevant point of time, which were Rs.5,356/- per month. Thus, the income
of the deceased is assessed as Rs.5,356/- per month. Further, keeping in view
the law laid down by the Division Bench in Paramjit Singh & Anr. Vs.
Dilbagh Singh @ Bagga & Ors. [2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 895], the Tribunal
has rightly not applied the deduction in the present case and the multiplier of
11 has also rightly been applied keeping in view the age of the deceased.
Further, the claimant-appellants would be entitled to compensation under the
conventional heads i.e. Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss
of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral
expenses as per the law laid down in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and
N. Jayasree (supra). The claimant-appellants, who are husband, daughters
and sons of the deceased, would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each
(Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium.
8. The amount of compensation to which the claimant-appellants
are held entitled to, is re-calculated as under :
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly income Rs.5,356/-
2 Annual Income [Rs.5,356 x 12] = Rs.64,272/-
3 Multiplier of 11 [Rs.64,272 x 11] = Rs.7,06,992/-
4 Funeral expenses [Rs.15,000/- + 20%] = Rs.18,000/-
5 Loss of Estate [Rs.15,000/- + 20%] = Rs.18,000/-
integrity of this order/judgment
FAO No.23 of 2014 4 2024:PHHC:040572
6 Loss of Consortium :
(i) Spousal Rs.48,000/-
(ii) Children [Rs.48,000 x 3] = Rs.1,44,000/-
Total : Rs.1,92,000/-
7 Total Compensation Rs. 9,34,992/- (rounded off to
Rs.9,35,000/-)
9. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.
The amount shall be apportioned as directed by the Tribunal.
10. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the claimant-appellants
stands allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent stated
above. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
20.03.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
