Nempal And Others v. Hawa Singh And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 12.02.2026 NEMPAL AND ORS .... Appellants
VERSUS
HAWA SINGH AND ANR .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :
Mr. Kapish Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. 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, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award dated 03.01.2024.
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 had awarded the following compensation : Sr. No.
Heads Compensation Awarded 1.
Monthly income ₹10,098 2.
Annual income [₹10,098 x 12] = ₹1,21,176 3.
Deduction 1/3rd [₹1,21,176 - ₹40,392] = ₹80,784 Future prospects @40% [₹80,784 + ₹32,312] = ₹1,13,096 Multiplier of 18 [₹1,13,096 x 18] = ₹20,35,728 Funeral expenses ₹16,500 Loss of estate ₹16,500 8.
Loss of spousal consortium ₹40,000 Total Compensation ₹21,08,728 (rounded off to ₹21,09,000) Interest @ 7.5% per annum
-2Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the deceased in the present case was 20 years old and that her income has wrongly been assessed as ₹10,098/- per month on the basis of the minimum wages applicable to Class-IV. It is further contended that even 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 still further contend that though the claimant-appellants do not challenge the deduction made towards personal expenses, the addition made towards future prospects and the multiplier applied 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 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].
Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-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.
Heard.
-3Admittedly, there is no appeal filed by respondent No.2Insurance Company. In the present case the Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased as ₹10,098/- per month. Though there is no evidence qua the income of the deceased, 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 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
-4women 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."
In the present case, considering the extensive contribution of the deceased in the household and in the absence of 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
-5of time, which were ₹12,450/- per month. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is assessed as ₹12,450/- per month (rounded off to ₹12,500/- per month) 8.
Since there is no challenge to the deduction made towards personal expenses, the addition made towards future prospects and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained. 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 would also be entitled to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of consortium. 9.
Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under : Sr. No.
Heads Compensation Awarded 1.
Monthly income ₹12,500 2.
Annual income [₹12,500 x 12] = ₹1,50,000 3.
Future prospects @ 40% [₹1,50,000 + ₹60,000] = ₹2,10,000 Deduction @ 1/3rd [₹2,10,000 - ₹70,000] = ₹1,40,000 Multiplier of 18 [₹1,40,000 x 18] = ₹25,20,000 Funeral expenses ₹18,000 Loss of estate ₹18,000 8.
Loss of consortium i.
Spousal ii.
Filial ₹48,000 [₹48,000 x 2] = ₹96,000 Total = ₹1,44,000 Total Compensation ₹27,00,000
-610.
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 Tribunal.
11.
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.2-Insurance Company in the bank accounts of the claimant-appellants within a period of six weeks from today. The particulars of the bank accounts along with the requisite documents in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimant-appellants to respondent No.2-Insurance company within a period of two weeks from today and needful shall be done by respondent No.2-Insurance Company after verification thereof within a period of four weeks thereafter along with up-to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned. 12.
In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 12.02.2026 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE:
Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No