High Court · 2026

Judgment

1. The present appeal has been filed The filed by the claimants–appellants seeking enhance hancement of the compensation awa n awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims laims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafte einafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide a vide award dated 08.02.2000, whereb hereby a sum of ₹57,600/- along with interest at t st at the rate of 12% per annum fro m from the date of filing of the claim petition till ion till its realization was granted in th d in their favour on account of the death of the wife

e wife of appellant No.1, namely Smt. y Smt. Baljeet Kaur, who died in a motor vehicular icular accident on 13.11.1997, cau 7, caused due to the rash and negligent driving riving of the driver of bus bearing reg ng registration No. DL-1P-8781.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant Lear pellants contends that the award passed by the lea the learned Tribunal is contrary to the to the facts and evidence available on record and ha nd has resulted in grave miscarriage o riage of justice to the appellants. It is submitted tha ed that although the learned Tribuna ribunal has rightly held that the accident dated 13

13.11.1997, near Khatela, Sub-Di Division Palwal, occurred due to the rash and n and negligent driving of the offendin ffending bus by respondent No.1, (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:8) (cid:1) owned by resp (cid:6)(cid:8)!(cid:3)#(cid:24)"(cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:9)(cid:22)(cid:9)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1) respondent No.2 and insured w red with respondent No.3, the compensation as ion assessed by the learned Tribunal ibunal is wholly inadequate. It is further contended tended that the learned Tribunal has e l has erroneously assessed the loss of services of the of the deceased at ₹300/- per month and has also wrongly applied the multiplier of lier of 16, without properly apprecia ppreciating that the deceased left behind her husba husband and two minor children who en who were dependent upon her. On these groun grounds, it is submitted that the c the compensation of ₹57,600/- awarded by the l y the learned Tribunal is inadequate an uate and deserves to be enhanced. In support of his of his submissions, learned counsel h nsel has placed reliance upon the judgments in Pa Parminder Singh v. Honey Goya oyal and others, Civil Appeal No. 4299 of 202 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. ) No. 4484 of 2020), decided on

18.03.2025; Nas Nasib Singh and another v. Kama amal Singh and others, FAO- 1309-2008 (P&H (P&H), decided on 17.03.2025; Ja Jasbir Singh and another v. Surjit Singh an h and others, 2024 NCPHHC 15 C 158224 (P&H), decided on

08.11.2024; Bhu Bhura Singh and others v. Mahend hender Singh and others, FAO- 8007-2015 (P&H (P&H), decided on 03.12.2019; Tej Tejinder Kumar and others v. Balwinder Sing Singh and another, FAO-263 2633-2018 (P&H), decided on02.12.2019; ; Sher Singh and others v. Buta Buta Singh and others, FAO- 6374-2015 (P& (P&H), decided on15.07.2019; ; and Paramjit Singh and another v. Dilba Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga and ot d others, 2014(4) RCR (Civil) 895 (P&H), deci ), decided on 16.05.2013, to contend t ntend that the services rendered by a housewife cann e cannot be undervalued and her notio r notional income is required to be assessed reasonab asonably while determining compensa pensation.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appeari Per ppearing on behalf of respondent No.3–Insurance rance Company submits that the com he compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal ibunal is just and reasonable and has b has been determined on the basis (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:8) (cid:1) of the evidence (cid:6)(cid:8)!(cid:3)#(cid:24)"(cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:9)(cid:23)(cid:9)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1) idence available on record. It is co t is contended that no case for enhancement is m nt is made out. In support of the afo he aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed laced upon the judgments in Mast Ra st Ram and another v. Parveen Kumar and o d others, FAO-1631-2002 (O&M), decided on16.02.; (O& Sukhwinder Sing Singh and others v. Manjit Singh ngh @ Manna and others, 2025 NCPHHC 17729 77297, decided on 22.12.2025 by th by this Court; and the judgement of Hon’ble Supr e Supreme Court in Kirti and anot another v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., , (2021) 1 RCR (Civil) 478, de , decided on 05.01.2021by the Hon’ble Suprem upreme Court, to contend that the a the assessment of compensation must be made o ade on the basis of settled legal pa gal parameters including notional income, future pr prospects and multiplier.

4. Having heard learned counsel for t Hav l for the parties and upon careful consideration of ion of the record, this Court finds finds that the impugned award warrants partial artial interference. The findings of gs of the learned Tribunal with respect to the age age of the deceased are affirmed rmed. However, the assessment of notional income come and the multiplier applied by t d by the learned Tribunal require reconsideration ation, and consequently the quantum o ntum of compensation deserves to be reassessed in sed in the light of the settled principle inciples governing motor accident claims with respe h respect to the death of a home maker maker.

5. While examining the question reg Whi on regarding the income of the deceased, it is no it is noticed that the learned Tribunal ibunal has assessed the income of the deceased at ed at ₹300/- per month, primarily on rily on the ground that she was a housewife and th and there was no documentary evid y evidence on record to establish that she was earn s earning by giving private tuitions. H ons. However, such an assessment appears to be w be wholly unrealistic and contrary ontrary to the settled principles governing determ determination of compensation in cas in cases involving the death of a (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:8) (cid:1) homemaker. It is (cid:6)(cid:8)!(cid:3)#(cid:24)"(cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:9)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1) It is now well settled that the contri contribution made by a housewife towards the fami e family cannot be treated as having aving negligible or no pecuniary value.

6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court A C Court in FAO-4806-2017, Shilpa Jain (since dece deceased) through LRs. vs. Inderjee erjeet Jain and others, decided on 15.01.2026 2026, while dealing with the ass e assessment of income of a homemaker, has r, has elaborately discussed the iss he issue in para no. 12 of the judgment has obs as observed as under :- d as ‘Jasbir Singh and , decided on 22.03.2018 f the housewife has held ourt in FAO-1292-2006, titled as This Cour er Vs. Surjit Singh and others’, dec another V assessing the notional income of the while asse er:- as under: O No. 218 of 2014, a co-ordinate “In FAO N relying upon the principles laid do while relyi hers v. State of Bihar and others and others ade the following observations:- 673), made “Lea Learned counsel for the appellant h oticing that the income of a skilled while notic imately Rs.8000/- the Tribunal has w approximat of the deceased as Rs.9000/-. A income of al income had been taken a deductio notional inc al expenses. This argument is flaw personal e hers v. State of Bihar and others and others Civil) 673 (where the accident had RCR (Civil n'ble Supreme Court evaluated th the Hon'bl wife at Rs.3000/-per month. The ac house wife ok place after 23 years. In my consi case took p e wife as a 'skilled worker' alone d a house wi to her multifarious role as a home m justice to h e lapse of 23 years between the ac view the la adhwa and the present accident and LataWadhw wife is something more than a me house wife not be unreasonable to estimate the would not ed in the present case at a higher fi deceased in reason for reducing the quantum." see no reas 7. I find sufficient reason to follow t 7. I No. No. 218 of 2014, particularly as I a Spec Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed this case has been dismissed by th Cou Court. Similarly, the SLP filed in th the a the appellants has also met the sam these orders have attained finality, further dispute regarding their bind ate Bench of this Court, d down in LataWadhwa hers 2001(4) RCR(Civil) ant has argued that even illed worker in 2012 was has wrongly assessed the . As per him once the ction had to be made for flawed. In LataWadhwa ers reported as 2001(4) had taken place in 1981) d the contribution of a e accident in the present onsidered opinion to tag ne does not do complete me manager. Keeping in e accident in the case of and my conclusion that a a mere skilled worker it e the contribution of the er figure. On the whole I low the judgment in FAO s I am informed that the iled against the order in by the Hon'ble Supreme the other case cited by same fate. Consequently, lity, leaving no scope for binding nature. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:8) (cid:1) (cid:6)(cid:8)!(cid:3)#(cid:24)"(cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:9)(cid:25)(cid:9)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)

8. It is imperative to acknowledge 8. It of a of a housewife as a homemaker extend beyond measurable eco encompassing household manage emotional support, and the upkeep Thes These services, though often unrec terms, are invaluable to the function a ho a household. In assessing compensa factor in this indispensable contrib otherwise necessitate considerab outsourced. In view of the abo asonable to determine the mon deceased Charanjit Kaur, housewi month, therefore, the award require Court.” Cou dge the multifaceted role aker. Her contributions economic parameters, nagement, child care, keep of familial stability. nrecognized in monetary ctioning and wellbeing of ensation, the court must ntribution, which would erable expenditure above, it is just and monthly income of the sewife at Rs.9,000/- per uires interference by the

7. It was held by this court that the rol It w the role of a housewife extends far beyond measur easurable economic parameters eters and includes household management, ch nt, child care, emotional support an ort and maintenance of familial stability. This Court has further observed that ed that such services, though not always reflected lected in monetary terms, are indispen dispensable to the functioning and well-being of a of a household and therefore dese e deserve due recognition while assessing compen ompensation.

8. The aforesaid principle also stands The stands reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Court Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Pande andey v. Girish Pandey SLP(C)No.20918 0918 of 2022,decided on 16.02.202 .2024, wherein it has been held that even if the d f the deceased was not formally empl y employed, the services rendered by a homemaker maker cannot be ignored and her incom r income, in no circumstances, can be assessed belo d below the wages admissible to a da to a daily wage worker under the Minimum Wages Wages Act.

9. In the present case, the accident occ In th nt occurred in the year 1997. It is a matter of comm f common knowledge, of which judic judicial notice can be taken, that during the late e late 1990s the wages payable t able to a skilled worker were (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:8) (cid:1) approximately ₹ (cid:6)(cid:8)!(cid:3)#(cid:24)"(cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1) ₹4500–₹5000/- per month. Furthe Furthermore, in LataWadhwa v. State of Bihar, ,(2001) 8 SCC 197, where the a the accident had occurred in the year 1981, the H , the Hon’ble Supreme Court assesse ssessed the notional income of a housewife at₹300 3000/- per month. In the present c sent case, the accident took place in 1997, i.e., ap .e., approximately 16 years after the the accident in LataWadhwa’s case. Therefore, efore, keeping in view the passage of t ge of time and the prevailing wage structure, this Co his Court deems it appropriate to asses o assess the notional income of the deceased at ₹450 ₹4500/- per month.

10. The second issue pertains to the The to the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal ibunal. A perusal of the impugned aw ed award reveals that the learned Tribunal has app as applied a multiplier of 16 while co hile computing the compensation. However, the law the law with regard to selection of mul of multiplier now stands settled by the Hon’ble S ble Supreme Court in SarlaVer aVerma v. Delhi Transport Corporation(200 (2009) 6 SCC 121; AIR 2009 S 09 SC 3104; which has been subsequently affi tly affirmed by the Constitution Bench Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. PranayS anaySethi (2017) 16 SCC 680,where wherein a standardized multiplier table has been pr een prescribed depending upon the age the age of the deceased. As per the said table, where where the age of the deceased falls falls within the bracket of 26–30 years, the approp appropriate multiplier to be applied i plied is 17. Since the deceased in the present case t case was about 30 years of age at th at the time of the accident, the appropriate mult e multiplier applicable would be 17 i e 17 instead of 16. Accordingly, the multiplier of of 17 deserves to be applied for d for the purpose of determining just compensatio nsation.

11. The last issue that arises for conside The onsideration in the present appeal pertains to the q the quantum of compensation award awarded by the learned Tribunal, which, in the con the considered view of this Court, has rt, has been assessed on the lower (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:8) (cid:1) side. Therefore, (cid:6)(cid:8)!(cid:3)#(cid:24)"(cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:9)(cid:27)(cid:9)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1) efore, the compensation requires to be to be recalculated in accordance with the settled ettled principles laid down by the H the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SarlaVerma v. a v. Delhi Transport Corporat poration, (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insura nsurance Co. Ltd. v. PranaySethi Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General eneral Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu R anu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130.

12. This Court assesses her notional inc This nal income at ₹4500/- per month. The deceased w sed was about 30 years of age at th at the time of the accident and therefore 40% in 0% increase towards future prospect ospects is required to be made in terms of the law e law laid down in National Insuranc surance Co. Ltd. v. PranaySethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6 CC 680. Consequently, the annual in ual income of the deceased works out to ₹75,600/ /- .Since the deceased left behind ehind her husband and two minor children, deducti eduction of 1/3rd towards personal and nal and living expenses is required to be made in ac e in accordance with the principles la ples laid down in SarlaVerma v. Delhi Transport nsport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 12 C 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thus, the , the annual dependency comes to es to ₹50,400/-. Applying the multiplier of 17 of 17, applicable to the age group o roup of the deceased, the loss of dependency work works out to ₹8,56,800/-.

13. In addition thereto, the claimants In a ants are entitled to spousal and parental consorti onsortium in terms of the law laid laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. L Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 S 18 SCC 130.. The conventional amount fixed in ed in Pranay Sethi (supra) is liable to able to be enhanced by10% every three years, and , and accordingly the amount paya t payable towards consortium is assessed at₹48,4 48,400/- per claimant. Since the de the deceased is survived by one husband and two nd two minor children, the total com al compensation payable towards consortium work works out to ₹1,45,200/- . Further, t rther, the claimants are entitled to ₹18,150/- each t each towards funeral expenses and lo and loss of estate, after applying (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:8) (cid:1) the escalation co (cid:6)(cid:8)!(cid:3)#(cid:24)"(cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:9)(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1) ion contemplated in Pranay Sethi (su i (supra). Accordingly, the total just compensatio ensation payable to the claimants mants is computed as follows: ₹10,38,300/-.

14. The enhanced compensation, i.e. o The , i.e. over and above the amount awarded by the l y the learned Tribunal, shall also carry o carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date o date of filing of the claim petition t ition till its realization. The said amount shall be all be payable by respondent No.3 No.3–Insurance Company to the appellants-claima claimants in equal shares. Appeals sta als stands allowed accordingly.

15. All pending miscellaneous applicat All plications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to er as to costs. (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:24)$0)1(cid:11)- (cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:7)/(cid:11) (cid:5) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:5) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:11) (cid:1) (cid:11) (cid:1) (cid:11) (cid:29)(cid:2)(cid:24)(cid:2)(cid:18)(cid:9) (cid:11) (cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:11)(cid:29)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:30)(cid:2)(cid:27)%(cid:1) (cid:11) (cid:11) (cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:11) (cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:13) !(cid:6)"#(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:21)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:13)$(cid:19)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:1) &(cid:4)(cid:5)#’(cid:21)(cid:1) &(cid:4)(cid:5)#’(cid:21)