IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 101 FAO-4813-2005 Date of Decision.:05.02.2026 Surinder …..Appellant Vs. Suresh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.4- Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant– husband seeking enhancement of compensa+on awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panipat, vide award dated 08.08.2005. 2. The claim arises out of a motor vehicular accident dated 24.12.2003, in which Smt. Suman, aged about 19 years, lost her life due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR-45-0607. The appellant, being the husband of the deceased, ins+tuted a pe++on under Sec+on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensa+on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. The learned Tribunal awarded a total compensa+on of ₹1,75,000/-, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the amount along with interest. The Insurance Company was granted recovery NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.06 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4813-2005 -2- rights against the owner of the offending vehicle. 4. The appellant has assailed the award on the ground that the income of the deceased has been grossly undervalued, as the Tribunal assessed it at ₹1,000/- per month on no+onal basis, despite the deceased being a young housewife aged 19–20 years. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the contribu+on of a housewife cannot be equated with that of an unskilled labourer and that the income ought to have been assessed at a substan+ally higher figure. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that in the year 2003, the minimum wages for an unskilled worker were around ₹1,800/- to ₹1,900/- per month, and therefore any substan+al enhancement would be unjus+fied. 7. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. The law is now well se<led that the services rendered by a housewife have an undeniable economic value and cannot be ignored merely because she was not earning wages. In Lata Wadhwa and ors. v. State of Bihar and ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized that the contribu+on of a housewife to the family is substan+al and measurable in monetary terms. The principle was further elaborated in Arun Kumar Agrawal and ors. v. Na%onal Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors., (2010) 9 SCC 218, wherein it was held that the gratuitous services rendered by a housewife are invaluable and deserve due considera+on while compu+ng compensa+on. 9. More recently, in Kir% & ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 166, the Supreme Court reiterated that trea+ng the work of a NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.06 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4813-2005 -3- homemaker as having no economic value would be a “serious injus+ce” and emphasized that courts must adopt a realis+c and gender-sensi+ve approach while assessing no+onal income. 10. At the same +me, assessment of no+onal income must remain contextual to the period of accident. In the present case, the accident occurred in December 2003. There is no evidence on record regarding the educa+onal qualifica+ons or specialized skills of the deceased. Therefore, while the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹1,000/- per month is manifestly on the lower side, the claim of ₹9,000/- per month, as contended by counsel for the appellant, is equally excessive for the relevant period. 11. Keeping in view the age of the deceased (19–20 years); the se<led recogni+on of the economic value of a housewife’s services; prevailing wage structure in 2003, and the guidance flowing from Lata Wadhwa, Arun Kumar Agrawal, and Kir% (supra), this Court considers it just and reasonable to assess the no+onal income at ₹3,000/- per month, i.e. ₹36,000/- per annum. 12. The learned Tribunal has further failed to award just compensa+on under the conven+onal heads and has not added any amount towards future prospects. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na%onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, an addi+on of 40% towards future prospects is required, as the deceased was below 40 years of age. 13. Since there is only one claimant (husband), deduc+on of one- half towards personal and living expenses is jus+fied. Further, considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate mul+plier is ‘18’, in terms of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora%on and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. 14. Accordingly, the compensa+on is recalculated as under: NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.06 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4813-2005 -4- Par8culars Amount
No+onal income (annual) : ₹36,000/-
Addi+on of 40% towards future prospects :₹14,400/-
Annual income aKer addi+on : ₹50,400/-
Deduc+on of 1/2 towards personal expenses : ₹25,200/-
Loss of dependency (annual) :₹25,200/-
Mul+plier :18
Loss of dependency (25,200 x 18) :₹4,53,600/- 15. Considering that the accident took place in 2003, compensa+on under conven+onal heads is awarded as follows:
Loss of estate – ₹5,000/-
Funeral expenses – ₹5,000/-
Loss of consor+um – ₹20,000/- 16. Thus, the total compensa+on payable to the appellant works out to:
Loss of dependency : ₹4,53,600/-
Conven+onal heads : ₹30,000/-
Total : ₹4,83,600/- 17. AKer deduc+ng the amount of ₹1,75,000/- already awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant is en+tled to an enhancement of ₹3,08,600/-. 18. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The enhanced compensa+on of ₹3,08,600/- shall be payable to the appellant jointly and severally by the respondents, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe++on +ll actual realiza+on. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.06 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4813-2005 -5- 19. The recovery rights granted to the Insurance Company by the learned Tribunal shall remain intact, there being no appeal on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle. 20. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 05, 2026 Nee+ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.06 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document