1. The seeking enhance Accident Claims Tribunal”) vide a with interest at t claim petition till death of the wife motor vehicular negligent driving 2. Lear passed by the lea on record and ha is submitted tha accident dated 13 to the rash and n !#"
  
      $ 












   

 



 



 



  
!
"

   ! The present appeal has been filed hancement of the compensation awa laims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafte vide award dated 08.02.2000, whereb st at the rate of 12% per annum fro ion till its realization was granted in th e wife of appellant No.1, namely Smt. icular accident on 13.11.1997, cau riving of the driver of bus bearing reg Learned counsel for the appellant the learned Tribunal is contrary to the nd has resulted in grave miscarriage o ed that although the learned Tribuna 13.11.1997, near Khatela, Sub-Di and negligent driving of the offendin

   
!#" $%&'(&)*+*',-. /


 





    " filed by the claimants–appellants n awarded by the learned Motor einafter referred to as “the learned hereby a sum of ₹57,600/- along m from the date of filing of the d in their favour on account of the y Smt. Baljeet Kaur, who died in a 7, caused due to the rash and ng registration No. DL-1P-8781. pellants contends that the award to the facts and evidence available riage of justice to the appellants. It ribunal has rightly held that the Division Palwal, occurred due ffending bus by respondent No.1,

owned by resp compensation as further contended of services of the the multiplier of behind her husba On these groun awarded by the l In support of his judgments in Pa No. 4299 of 202 18.03.2025; Nas 1309-2008 (P&H Surjit Singh an 08.11.2024; Bhu 8007-2015 (P&H Balwinder Sing on02.12.2019; 6374-2015 (P& another v. Dilba 895 (P&H), deci a housewife cann assessed reasonab 3. Per No.3–Insurance learned Tribunal !#" 
respondent No.2 and insured w ion assessed by the learned Tribunal tended that the learned Tribunal has e of the deceased at ₹300/- per month lier of 16, without properly apprecia husband and two minor children who grounds, it is submitted that the c y the learned Tribunal is inadequate an of his submissions, learned counsel h Parminder Singh v. Honey Goya of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. Nasib Singh and another v. Kama (P&H), decided on 17.03.2025; Ja h and others, 2024 NCPHHC 15 Bhura Singh and others v. Mahend (P&H), decided on 03.12.2019; Tej Singh and another, FAO-263 ; Sher Singh and others v. Buta (P&H), decided on15.07.2019; Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga and ot ), decided on 16.05.2013, to contend t e cannot be undervalued and her notio asonably while determining compensa Per contra, learned counsel appeari rance Company submits that the com ibunal is just and reasonable and has b

red with respondent No.3, the ibunal is wholly inadequate. It is l has erroneously assessed the loss and has also wrongly applied ppreciating that the deceased left en who were dependent upon her. the compensation of ₹57,600/- uate and deserves to be enhanced. nsel has placed reliance upon the oyal and others, Civil Appeal ) No. 4484 of 2020), decided on amal Singh and others, FAO- Jasbir Singh and another v. C 158224 (P&H), decided on hender Singh and others, FAO- Tejinder Kumar and others v. 2633-2018 (P&H), decided Buta Singh and others, FAO- ; and Paramjit Singh and d others, 2014(4) RCR (Civil) ntend that the services rendered by r notional income is required to be pensation. ppearing on behalf of respondent he compensation awarded by the has been determined on the basis

of the evidence enhancement is m has been placed Kumar and o Sukhwinder Sing NCPHHC 17729 of Hon’ble Supr Company Ltd., Hon’ble Suprem must be made o income, future pr 4. Hav consideration of warrants partial respect to the age notional income reconsideration be reassessed in claims with respe 5. Whi deceased, it is no the deceased at housewife and th that she was earn appears to be w governing determ !#" 
idence available on record. It is co nt is made out. In support of the afo laced upon the judgments in Mast Ra d others, FAO-1631-2002 (O& Singh and others v. Manjit Singh 77297, decided on 22.12.2025 by th e Supreme Court in Kirti and anot , (2021) 1 RCR (Civil) 478, de upreme Court, to contend that the a ade on the basis of settled legal pa prospects and multiplier. Having heard learned counsel for t ion of the record, this Court finds artial interference. The findings of age of the deceased are affirmed come and the multiplier applied by t ation, and consequently the quantum o sed in the light of the settled principle h respect to the death of a home maker While examining the question reg it is noticed that the learned Tribunal ed at ₹300/- per month, primarily on and there was no documentary evid s earning by giving private tuitions. H be wholly unrealistic and contrary determination of compensation in cas

t is contended that no case for he aforesaid submissions, reliance st Ram and another v. Parveen (O&M), decided on16.02.; ngh @ Manna and others, 2025 by this Court; and the judgement another v. Oriental Insurance , decided on 05.01.2021by the the assessment of compensation gal parameters including notional l for the parties and upon careful finds that the impugned award gs of the learned Tribunal with rmed. However, the assessment of d by the learned Tribunal require ntum of compensation deserves to inciples governing motor accident maker. on regarding the income of the ibunal has assessed the income of rily on the ground that she was a y evidence on record to establish ons. However, such an assessment ontrary to the settled principles in cases involving the death of a

homemaker. It is towards the fami value. 6. A C Jain (since dece on 15.01.2026 homemaker, has judgment has obs This Cour another V while asse as under: “In FAO N while relyi and others 673), made “Lea while notic approximat income of notional inc personal e and others RCR (Civil the Hon'bl house wife case took p a house wi justice to h view the la LataWadhw house wife would not deceased in see no reas 7. I No. Spec this Cou the a thes furth !#" 
It is now well settled that the contri e family cannot be treated as having A Coordinate Bench of this Court deceased) through LRs. vs. Inderjee 2026, while dealing with the ass r, has elaborately discussed the iss as observed as under :- ourt in FAO-1292-2006, titled as er Vs. Surjit Singh and others’, dec assessing the notional income of the er:- O No. 218 of 2014, a co-ordinate relying upon the principles laid do hers v. State of Bihar and others ade the following observations:- Learned counsel for the appellant h oticing that the income of a skilled imately Rs.8000/- the Tribunal has w of the deceased as Rs.9000/-. A al income had been taken a deductio al expenses. This argument is flaw hers v. State of Bihar and others Civil) 673 (where the accident had n'ble Supreme Court evaluated th wife at Rs.3000/-per month. The ac ok place after 23 years. In my consi e wife as a 'skilled worker' alone d to her multifarious role as a home m e lapse of 23 years between the ac adhwa and the present accident and wife is something more than a me not be unreasonable to estimate the ed in the present case at a higher fi reason for reducing the quantum." 7. I find sufficient reason to follow t No. 218 of 2014, particularly as I a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed this case has been dismissed by th Court. Similarly, the SLP filed in th the appellants has also met the sam these orders have attained finality, further dispute regarding their bind

contribution made by a housewife aving negligible or no pecuniary Court in FAO-4806-2017, Shilpa erjeet Jain and others, decided e assessment of income of a he issue in para no. 12 of the d as ‘Jasbir Singh and , decided on 22.03.2018 f the housewife has held 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.

8. It of a exte enco emo Thes term a ho facto othe outs reas dece mon Cou 7. It w beyond measur management, ch stability. This always reflected well-being of a assessing compen 8. The Supreme Court SLP(C)No.20918 that even if the d by a homemaker be assessed belo Minimum Wages 9. In th a matter of comm during the late !#" 
8. It is imperative to acknowledge of a housewife as a homemaker extend beyond measurable eco encompassing household manage emotional support, and the upkeep These services, though often unrec terms, are invaluable to the function 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.” It was held by this court that the rol easurable economic parameters nt, child care, emotional support an Court has further observed that lected in monetary terms, are indispen of a household and therefore dese ompensation. The aforesaid principle also stands Court in Arvind Kumar Pande 0918 of 2022,decided on 16.02.202 f the deceased was not formally empl maker cannot be ignored and her incom d below the wages admissible to a da Wages Act. In the present case, the accident occ f common knowledge, of which judic e late 1990s the wages payable t

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 if above, it is just and monthly income of the sewife at Rs.9,000/- per uires interference by the the role of a housewife extends far eters and includes household ort and maintenance of familial ed that such services, though not dispensable to the functioning and e deserve due recognition while stands reaffirmed by the Hon’ble andey v. Girish Pandey in .2024, wherein it has been held y employed, the services rendered r income, in no circumstances, can to a daily wage worker under the nt occurred in the year 1997. It is judicial notice can be taken, that able to a skilled worker were

approximately ₹ State of Bihar, year 1981, the H housewife at₹300 in 1997, i.e., ap case. Therefore, structure, this Co deceased at ₹450 10. The learned Tribunal Tribunal has app However, the law the Hon’ble S Corporation(200 subsequently affi Ltd. v. PranayS table has been pr said table, where years, the approp the present case appropriate mult the multiplier of just compensatio 11. The pertains to the q which, in the con !#" 
₹4500–₹5000/- per month. Furthe ,(2001) 8 SCC 197, where the a , the Hon’ble Supreme Court assesse 3000/- per month. In the present c .e., approximately 16 years after the efore, keeping in view the passage of t his Court deems it appropriate to asses ₹4500/- per month. The second issue pertains to the ibunal. A perusal of the impugned aw as applied a multiplier of 16 while co the law with regard to selection of mul ble Supreme Court in SarlaVer (2009) 6 SCC 121; AIR 2009 S tly affirmed by the Constitution Bench anaySethi (2017) 16 SCC 680,where een prescribed depending upon the age where the age of the deceased falls appropriate multiplier to be applied i t case was about 30 years of age at th e multiplier applicable would be 17 i of 17 deserves to be applied for nsation. The last issue that arises for conside the quantum of compensation award the considered view of this Court, has

Furthermore, in LataWadhwa v. the accident had occurred in the ssessed the notional income of a sent case, the accident took place the accident in LataWadhwa’s ge of time and the prevailing wage o assess the notional income of the to the multiplier applied by the ed award reveals that the learned hile computing the compensation. of multiplier now stands settled by aVerma v. Delhi Transport 09 SC 3104; which has been Bench in National Insurance Co. wherein a standardized multiplier the age of the deceased. As per the falls within the bracket of 26–30 plied is 17. Since the deceased in at the time of the accident, the e 17 instead of 16. Accordingly, d for the purpose of determining onsideration in the present appeal awarded by the learned Tribunal, rt, has been assessed on the lower

side. Therefore, with the settled SarlaVerma v. National Insura Magma General 12. This The deceased w therefore 40% in terms of the law (2017) 16 SCC 6 out to ₹75,600/ children, deducti to be made in ac Delhi Transport Ltd. Thus, the multiplier of 17 dependency work 13. In a parental consorti Insurance Co. L amount fixed in three years, and assessed at₹48,4 husband and two consortium work ₹18,150/- each t !#" 
efore, the compensation requires to be ettled principles laid down by the H a v. Delhi Transport Corporat nsurance Co. Ltd. v. PranaySethi eneral Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu R This Court assesses her notional inc sed was about 30 years of age at th 0% increase towards future prospect e law laid down in National Insuranc CC 680. Consequently, the annual in /- .Since the deceased left behind eduction of 1/3rd towards personal and e in accordance with the principles la nsport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 12 , the annual dependency comes to of 17, applicable to the age group o works out to ₹8,56,800/-. In addition thereto, the claimants onsortium in terms of the law laid Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 S ed in Pranay Sethi (supra) is liable to , and accordingly the amount paya 48,400/- per claimant. Since the de nd two minor children, the total com works out to ₹1,45,200/- . Further, t each towards funeral expenses and lo

to be recalculated in accordance the Hon’ble Supreme Court in poration, (2009) 6 SCC 121, Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and anu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130. nal income at ₹4500/- per month. at the time of the accident and ospects is required to be made in surance Co. Ltd. v. PranaySethi, ual income of the deceased works ehind her husband and two minor nal and living expenses is required ples laid down in SarlaVerma v. C 121, National Insurance Co. es to ₹50,400/-. Applying the roup of the deceased, the loss of ants are entitled to spousal and laid down in Magma General 18 SCC 130.. The conventional able to be enhanced by10% every t payable towards consortium is the deceased is survived by one al compensation payable towards rther, the claimants are entitled to and loss of estate, after applying

the escalation co just compensatio ₹10,38,300/-. 14. The awarded by the l from the date o amount shall be appellants-claima 15. All of. No order as to




$0)1- /
  



!#"
ion contemplated in Pranay Sethi (su ensation payable to the claimants The enhanced compensation, i.e. o y the learned Tribunal, shall also carry date of filing of the claim petition t all be payable by respondent No.3 claimants in equal shares. Appeals sta All pending miscellaneous applicat er as to costs.





 !"# 

 $




i (supra). Accordingly, the total mants is computed as follows: , i.e. over and above the amount o carry interest @7.5% per annum ition till its realization. The said No.3–Insurance Company to the als stands allowed accordingly. plications, if any, stand disposed    %
 



&#'



&#'