[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh And Anr vs Satnam Singh And Ors on 29 January, 2026
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-7732-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 29.01.2026
Gurmeet Singh and Another ... Appellants
Versus
Satnam Singh @ Satti and Others ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Janak Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Rajvinder Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
CM-25957-CII-2016
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The
delay of 138 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. However, the
claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing
the present appeal.
FAO-7732-2016 (O&M)
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award
dated 17.10.2015 on account of death of Amarjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to
as the 'deceased').
3. 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.
4. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following
compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Notional monthly income ₹3,000/-
2 Annual income [₹3,000 x 12] = ₹36,000/-
3 Multiplier - 9 [₹36,000 x 9] = ₹3,24,000/-
4 Loss of consortium ₹1,00,000/-
5 Funeral expenses ₹25,000/-
Total Compensation ₹4,49,000/-
Interest 7.5% per annum
5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
the deceased in the present case was a homemaker and the Tribunal has
assessed her notional income as ₹3,000/- per month which is on the lower side
inasmuch as at the relevant point of time the minimum wages for an unskilled
worker were also more than the income assessed by the Tribunal. It is further
contended that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as per
the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of
time. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the
Tribunal has applied a multiplier of '9' which, as per age of the deceased who
was 55 years of age, ought to have been '11'. It is further the contention that
the Tribunal has not made any addition towards loss of future prospects.
Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional
heads as well as under the head 'loss of consortium' is also not in consonance
with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kirti & Anr. vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 478], 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].
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company has vehemently argued that while calculating the amount of
compensation the Tribunal has not applied any deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased. It is further the contention that sufficient amount
has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there
is no scope of any enhancement.
7. Heard.
8. Admittedly, no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
The argument of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the
income of the deceased, who was a homemaker, ought to have been assessed
as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant point
of time, deserves to be accepted. In the case of Kirti (supra), Hon'ble Supreme
Court, 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
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,
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."
9. 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 ₹8,524/- per month. Accordingly, the
income of the deceased is assessed as ₹8,600/- per month rounded off.
10. Further, the argument of learned counsel for respondent No.3-
Insurance Company that the Tribunal has not applied any deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased deserves to be accepted. There are two
dependents in the present case hence, as per law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), a deduction of 1/3rd would
be applicable.
11. The Tribunal has applied a multiplier of '9'. The deceased in the
present case was 55 years of age hence, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), a multiplier of '11' would be
applicable.
12. Further, the Tribunal has not made any addition towards loss of
future prospects, which ought to have been made in view of the law laid down
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti (supra). Since the deceased
was 55 years of age at the time of accident, an addition of 10% would be
applicable towards loss of future prospects as per the law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
13. Further, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads as
well as under the head 'loss of consortium' are not 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).
Hence, 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 as also to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000 + 20% increase)
towards loss of spousal and parental consortium.
14. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income ₹8,600/-
2 Annual Income ₹1,03,200/- [₹8,600 x 12]
3 Deduction - 1/3rd ₹68,800/- [₹1,03,200 - ₹34,400]
4 Future Prospects - 10% ₹75,680/- [₹68,800 + ₹6,880]
5 Multiplier - 11 ₹8,32,480/- [₹75,680 x 11]
6 Loss of estate ₹18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses ₹18,000/-
8 Loss of consortium
(i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 1] ₹48,000/-
(ii) Spousal's ₹48,000/-
(Total ₹96,000/-)
Total Compensation ₹9,64,480/-
15. 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. However,
the claimant-appellants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of
delay in filing the present appeal.
16. In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [AIR 2025 SC 1713 = 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 567], after calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be
transferred by the Insurance Company in the bank account(s) of the claimants
within six weeks from today and the apportionment thereof shall be as per the
percentage directed by the Tribunal. The particulars of the bank account(s)
alongwith the requisite documents(s) in support thereof shall be furnished by
the claimant-appellants to the Insurance company within a period of two
weeks from the date of this order and needful shall be done by the Insurance
Company after verification thereof within four weeks thereafter alongwith up-
to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the
Tribunal concerned.
17. In view of the above discussion, the award passed by the Tribunal
is modified and the present appeal stands allowed accordingly. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
29.01.2026 ( ALKA SARIN )
jk JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
