FAO-3684-2003 IN THE 228 Darshan Singh (S Resham Singh an CORAM: HON Present: Ms for th Mr. M Mr. V for t **** AMARINDER S 1. The seeking enhancem Accident Claims dated 06.06.2003, death of Balbir K driving of respond 2. Lear award suffers fro awarded wholly 003(O&M) -1- N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH Reserv Prono Uploa ngh (Since deceased through Lrs) and o Versus gh and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARI **** Ms. Shreyansi Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Munish Goel, Advocate, and Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent No.3 (Insurance C **** ER SINGH GREWAL, J. The present appeal has been filed hancement of the compensation aw laims Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter .2003, whereby a sum of ₹1,51,200/ albir Kaur, wife of the appellant No espondent No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants ers from patent illegality inasmuch holly inadequate compensation des NJAB AND HARYANA GARH FAO-3684-2003 Reserved on: 09.04.2026 Pronounced on: 21.04.2026 Uploaded on: 23.04.2026
) and others ……Appellants ……Respondents MARINDER SINGH GREWAL rance Company) filed by the appellants–claimants on awarded by the learned Motor inafter “the Tribunal”), vide award ,200/- was granted on account of the nt No.1, due to rash and negligent llants contended that the impugned much as the learned Tribunal has n despite recording a categorical dents ants otor ward f the igent gned has rical SHUBHAM 2026.04.23 11:12 I am the author of this document FAO-3684-2003 finding that the offending vehicle injuries suffered deceased has been contributing to th earning through towards personal and the multiplier of the deceased, th contended that th on record. Conse Lastly, it was ar heads such as fu the appellants are and Others vs. St and Others vs. T 2025:PHHC:1274 3. At t Company submit suffer from any ir are well-reasoned Tribunal. It was interference in ap 4. I hav record, with their 003(O&M) -2- t the accident occurred due to rash ehicle by respondent No.1 and that th d therein. Further it was subm as been assessed on the lower side wit g to the family not only by performin ough sale of milk. Furthermore, it rsonal expenses is excessive in view ltiplier applied is contrary to settled p ased, thereby resulting in reduced com that the overall computation is not in Consequently, the compensation aw as argued that no amount has been as funeral expenses, loss of consortiu nts are legally entitled. Reliance has b s. State of Bihar and Others, (2001 vs. The New India Assurance Com :127459. At the outset, learned counsel fo ubmitted that the award passed by t any irregularity or infirmity, and that asoned on the basis of the material t was accordingly contended that in appeal. I have heard learned counsel for t their able assistance. rash and negligent driving of the that the deceased succumbed to the submitted that the income of the de without appreciating that she was forming household work but also by , it is urged that the deduction view of the number of dependents, ttled principles applicable to the age d compensation. Additionally, it was not in consonance with the evidence on awarded deserves enhancement. s been awarded under conventional sortium and loss of estate, to which e has been placed on Lata Wadhwa , (2001) 8 SCC 197; Naresh Kumar Company Limited and Another, sel for respondent No.3-Insurance d by the learned Tribunal does not nd that the findings recorded therein aterial available before the learned that no ground is made out for l for the parties and examined the f the o the f the was o by ction ents, age t was ence ent. ional hich wa ar , ance s not erein rned t for the SHUBHAM 2026.04.23 11:12 I am the author of this document FAO-3684-2003 5. The deceased are affi future prospects, award under co Consequently the light of the settle the death of a hom 6. Whil deceased, it is no deceased at ₹2,1 housewife and th she was earning wholly unrealistic of compensation settled that the co treated as having 7. A Co (since deceased) 15.01.2026, while homemaker, has e has observed as u “ another assessing under:- “I Court, w Wadhwa 003(O&M) -3- The findings of the learned Tribunal re affirmed. However, the learned tri pects, the assessment of notional inco er conventional heads has been giv tly the quantum of compensation des e settled principles governing motor a f a home maker. While examining the question re t is noticed that the learned Tribunal h ₹2,100/- per month, primarily on and there was no documentary eviden rning by selling milk. However, such ealistic and contrary to the settled princ sation in cases involving the death o the contribution made by a housewife aving negligible or no pecuniary value A Coordinate Bench of this Court in sed) through LRs. vs. Inderjeet J while dealing with the asses r, has elaborately discussed the issue i d as under :- “This Court in FAO-1292-2006, t ther Vs. Surjit Singh and others’, dec ssing the notional income of the - “In FAO No. 218 of 2014, a co rt, while relying upon the princi hwa and others v. State of Bih ibunal with respect to the age of the ned tribunal has completely omitted l income is on the lesser side and no en given by the learned Tribunal. ion deserves to be reassessed in the otor accident claims with respect to ion regarding the income of the unal has assessed the income of the ily on the ground that she was a evidence on record to establish that r, such an assessment appears to be d principles governing determination eath of homemaker. It is now well sewife towards the family cannot be value. ourt in FAO-4806-2017, Shilpa Jain eet Jain and others, decided on assessment of income of a issue in para no. 12 of the judgment 06, titled as ‘Jasbir Singh and , decided on 22.03.2018 while the housewife has held as a co-ordinate Bench of this inciples laid down in Lata Bihar and others 2001(4) f the itted d no unal. n the ct to the f the a that to be ation well ot be ain d on ment SHUBHAM 2026.04.23 11:12 I am the author of this document FAO-3684-2003 RCR(Civ “L while no approxim income notional personal others v (Civil) 6 Hon'ble wife at R place aft as a 'ski multifari of 23 yea the pres somethin unreason present c reducing 7. No. 218 Leave Pe dismisse in the ot fate. Con scope fo 8. housewif measura managem familial monetar of a hou in this necessita above, it of the d month, th 8. It wa beyond measurab child care, emotio has further observ terms, are indispe 003(O&M) -4- (Civil) 673), made the following obs “Learned counsel for the appella e noticing that the income of a ski roximately Rs.8000/- the Tribunal h me of the deceased as Rs.9000/ onal income had been taken a dedu onal expenses. This argument is flaw rs v. State of Bihar and others re il) 673 (where the accident had t 'ble Supreme Court evaluated the at Rs.3000/-per month. The acciden e after 23 years. In my considered op 'skilled worker' alone does not do tifarious role as a home manager. K 3 years between the accident in the c present accident and my conclusi ething more than a mere skilled asonable to estimate the contributio ent case at a higher figure. On the w cing the quantum." 7. I find sufficient reason to follo 218 of 2014, particularly as I am i ve Petition (SLP) filed against the or issed by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour e other case cited by the appellan . Consequently, these orders have at e for further dispute regarding their 8. It is imperative to acknowledge sewife as a homemaker. Her cont surable economic parameters, e agement, child care, emotional sup ilial stability. These services, thoug etary terms, are invaluable to the f household. In assessing compensati this indispensable contribution, ssitate considerable expenditure if o ve, it is just and reasonable to deter he deceased Charanjit Kaur, hous th, therefore, the award requires inte It was held by this court that the ro asurable economic parameters and inc emotional support and maintenance o observed that such services, though no indispensable to the functioning and w observations:- pellant has argued that even skilled worker in 2012 was al has wrongly assessed the 00/-. As per him once the deduction had to be made for flawed. In Lata Wadhwa and rs reported as 2001(4) RCR ad taken place in 1981) the the contribution of a house ident in the present case took ed opinion to tag a house wife ot do complete justice to her er. Keeping in view the lapse the case of Lata Wadhwa and lusion that a house wife is led worker it would not be bution of the deceased in the the whole I see no reason for follow the judgment in FAO am informed that the Special he order in this case has been ourt. Similarly, the SLP filed llants has also met the same e attained finality, leaving no their binding nature. dge the multifaceted role of a contributions extend beyond s, encompassing household l support, and the upkeep of hough often unrecognized in the functioning and wellbeing nsation, the court must factor n, which would otherwise e if outsourced. In view of the etermine the monthly income housewife at Rs.9,000/- per s interference by the Court.” the role of a housewife extends far nd includes household management, ance of familial stability. This Court ugh not always reflected in monetary and well-being of a household and s far ent, ourt etary and SHUBHAM 2026.04.23 11:12 I am the author of this document FAO-3684-2003 therefore deserve 9. The Supreme Court SLP(C)No.20918 even if the decea homemaker cann assessed below Minimum Wages 10. In th matter of common the early 2000s ₹2,500/- per mon SCC 197, where Supreme Court a month. In the pre 19 years after the the passage of ti appropriate to ass 11. Furth mortem report. In National Insuranc SCC 680, an add ₹1,125/- further a the deceased left (Annual depende 003(O&M) -5- eserve due recognition while assessing The aforesaid principle also stand Court in Arvind Kumar Pand 0918 of 2022, decided on 16.02.2024 deceased was not formally employe r cannot be ignored and her income, elow the wages admissible to a da ages Act. In the present case, the accident occ mmon knowledge, of which judicial n 000s the wages payable to a skilled r month. Furthermore, in Lata Wadhw where the accident had occurred in ourt assessed the notional income o he present case, the accident took plac ter the accident in Lata Wadhwa’s ca e of time and the prevailing wage s to assess the notional income of the de Further, the deceased was 50 years o ort. In terms of the law laid down by surance Company Limited v. Pranay an addition towards future prospects rther annual income comes to 67,500 ed left behind her husband and two pendency = ₹67,500 − ₹22,500 = ₹4 essing compensation. stands reaffirmed by the Hon’ble andey v. Girish Pandey in 2.2024, wherein it has been held that ployed, the services rendered by a come, in no circumstances, can be a daily wage worker under the nt occurred in the year 2001. It is a icial notice can be taken, that during skilled worker were approximately adhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 red in the year 1981, the Hon’ble ome of a housewife at ₹3000/- per ok place in 2001, i.e., approximately ’s case. Therefore, keeping in view age structure, this Court deems it f the deceased at ₹4500/- per month. years of age, as reflected in the post- n by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) spects @ 25% (25% of ₹4,500 = 7,500/-) is liable to be made. Since d two children, deduction of 1/3rd 0 = ₹45,000) towards personal and n’ble in that by a n be the t is a uring ately ) 8 n’ble per ately view s it nth. - rt in (16) 00 = ince 1/3rd and SHUBHAM 2026.04.23 11:12 I am the author of this document FAO-3684-2003 living expenses i down in Sarla V Applying the mul group of the dece 12. In a compensation un ₹48,400/- towar claimants = ₹1, towards loss of e every three years Pranay Sethi’s c to the ₹7,66,500/- (₹5,8 13. The (₹7,66,500 - ₹1,51 Tribunal, shall als the claim petitio appellants-claima terms. 14. Pend April 21, 2026 Shubham Whe Whe 003(O&M) -6- nses is required to be made in accor rla Verma v. Delhi Transport Cor e multiplier of 13 (₹45,000 × 13 = ₹5 e deceased as the principles laid down In addition, thereto, the appell ion under the conventional heads, eac towards loss of love and affectio ₹1,45,200/-). Further, the claima ss of estate, ₹18,150/- towards funera e years as per the law laid down by t i’s case (supra)). Accordingly, the to e claimants is com ₹5,85,000 + ₹18,150/- + ₹18,150/- The enhanced compensation in the 1,51,200 = ₹6,21,300/-) the compen hall also carry interest @ 7.5% per an petition till its realization, payable claimants in equal ratios. Hence, the Pending application(s), if any, shall a (AMARINDER JUD Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether Reportable:- accordance with the principles laid Corporation 2009 (6) SCC 121. 3 = ₹5,85,000), applicable to the age down in Sarla Verma(supra). appellants are also entitled to ds, each claimant is held entitled to ffection/consortium (₹48,400 × 3 laimants are entitled to ₹18,150/- funeral expenses (escalation @10% n by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in , the total just compensation payable computed as follows: -). the appeal, i.e. over and above ompensation awarded by the learned per annum from the date of filing of yable by respondent No.3 to the ce, the appeal is allowed in above shall also stand disposed of. ER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No laid . e age to ed to × 3 - 10% rt in able : bove rned g of the bove SHUBHAM 2026.04.23 11:12 I am the author of this document