[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Parveen Kumar And Anr vs Mohammad Anis on 28 November, 2025

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                       265
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH


                                                                     FAO-1584-2023 (O&M)
                                                                     Date of Decision: 28.11.2025

                       PARVEEN KUMAR AND ANR.                                      .... Appellants

                                                          VERSUS

                       MOHAMMAD ANIS AND ORS                                     .... Respondents

                       CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                       Present :    Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for
                                    Mr. Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate
                                    for the appellants.

                                    Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Senior Advocate with
                                    Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate
                                    for respondent No.3.

                       ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants

aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award

dated 02.01.2023.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as

recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being

adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following

compensation :

                                       FAO-1584-2023 (O&M)                                      -2-


                          Sr. No.                Heads                    Compensation Awarded
                               1.   Monthly income                  ₹8,000
                               2.   Deduction 1/3rd                 [₹8,000 -₹2,665] = ₹5,335
                               3.   Annual income                   [₹5,335 x 12] = ₹64,020
                                                                    (rounded off to ₹64,000)
                               4.   Multiplier of 16                [₹64,000 x 16] = ₹10,24,000
                               5.   Funeral expenses                ₹15,000
                               6.   Loss of estate                  ₹15,000
                               7.   Loss of consortium              ₹40,000
                                    Total Compensation              ₹10,94,000
                                    Interest                        @ 6.00% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that

the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as ₹8,000 per month

by the Tribunal which ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages

applicable to a skilled worker i.e. ₹11,235 per month keeping in view the fact

that the deceased was running a stitching and training center under the name

of 'Sudesh Silai Centre'. It is further contended that even otherwise in the

absence of any evidence if the deceased is treated as a homemaker the income

would have to be assessed as that of a skilled worker. Reliance is placed upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirti & Anr. vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 478]. Learned counsel

would further contend that the multiplier of '16' has wrongly been applied by

the Tribunal, whereas it ought to have been '17' keeping in view the age of

the deceased being 30 years at the time of the accident. It is further the

contention of the learned counsel that no addition has been made towards

future prospects which ought to have been 40%. Learned counsel would still

further contend that though the claimant-appellants do not challenge the

FAO-1584-2023 (O&M) -3-

deduction as made by the Tribunal, however, the amounts awarded under the

head 'loss of consortium' and under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate

and funeral expenses are on the lower side. In support of his contentions the

learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgments of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], 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, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient

amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and

that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the income of the

deceased as ₹8,000 per month. Though there is no evidence qua the income

being earned by way of stitching, however, even if the deceased was to be

considered as a homemaker, the income would have to be assessed as that of

a skilled worker. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti (supra),

while emphasizing upon the contribution made by a homemaker and the

services rendered by a woman in a household, observed that there can be no

exact calculation or formula that can ascertain the actual value provided by a

homemaker gratuitously. In order to streamline the calculation of notional

FAO-1584-2023 (O&M) -4-

income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them

for the purposes of assessing the compensation, the following principles were

laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

"42. Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general

observations can be made regarding the issue of

calculation of notional income for homemakers and the

grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the

purposes of grant of compensation which can be

summarized as follows:

a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis,

with respect to a homemaker, is a settled

proposition of law.

b. Taking into account the gendered nature of

housework, with an overwhelming percentage of

women being engaged in the same as compared to

men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker

attains special significance. It becomes a

recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of

homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes.

It is also in furtherance of our nation's international

law obligations and our constitutional vision of

social equality and ensuring dignity to all.

c. Various methods can be employed by the

Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker,

FAO-1584-2023 (O&M) -5-

depending on the facts and circumstances of the

case.

d. The Court should ensure while choosing the

method, and fixing the notional income, that the

same is just in the facts and circumstances of the

particular case, neither assessing the compensation

too conservatively, nor too liberally.

e. The granting of future prospects, on the

notional income calculated in such cases, is a

component of just compensation."

In the present case, considering the extensive contribution of the

deceased in the household and in the absence of any evidence regarding her

exact income, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the income of the

deceased as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the

relevant point of time, which were ₹11,235 per month. Accordingly, the

income of the deceased is assessed as ₹11,235 per month.

8. The Tribunal has though rightly made a deduction to the extent

of 1/3rd, however, a multiplier of '16' has wrongly been applied. As per the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma

(supra), multiplier of '17' would be applicable keeping in view the age of the

deceased being 30 years at the time of the accident. Further, no amount has

been awarded towards future prospects. As per the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% addition is

made towards future prospects.

FAO-1584-2023 (O&M) -6-

9. The amount awarded under the conventional heads i.e. loss of

estate and funeral expenses and under the head 'loss of consortium' are on the

lower side. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company

Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), the claimant-appellants would be

entitled to ₹18,000 (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of estate and

₹18,000 (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards funeral expenses. The claimant-

appellants, being the husband and the son of the deceased, would also be

entitled to ₹48,000 each (₹40,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of consortium.

10. Accordingly, the reworked compensation to which the claimant-

appellants are entitled to is as under :

                         Sr. No.                Heads                    Compensation Awarded
                               1.   Monthly income                ₹11,235
                               2.   Annual income                 [₹11,235 x 12] = ₹1,34,820
                               3.   Deduction 1/3rd               [₹1,34,820 - ₹44,940] = ₹89,880
                               4.   Future prospects @ 40%        [₹89,880 + ₹35,952] = ₹1,25,832
                               5.   Multiplier '17'               [₹1,25,832 x 17] = ₹21,39,144
                               6.   Loss of estate                ₹18,000
                               7.   Funeral expenses              ₹18,000
                               8.   Loss of Consortium :
                                    (i) Parental                  ₹48,000
                                    (ii) Spousal                  ₹48,000
                                                                  [Total ₹96,000]
                                    Total Compensation            ₹22,71,144

11. 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 between the claimant-appellants as directed by the

FAO-1584-2023 (O&M) -7-

Tribunal.

12. In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [AIR 2025 (SC) 1713], after

calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be transferred by respondent

No.3-Insurance Company in the bank account(s) of the claimant-appellants

within a period of six weeks from today. The share of the minor claimant-

appellant No.2 shall be kept in an FDR with a nationalized bank fetching