1 2025:CGHC:45699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1339 of 2019 1 - Santosh Kumar Lalwani S/o Late Madhav Lal Lalwani Aged About 54 Years R/o Qr. No. 13, Raipur Naka Sindhi Colony, Ward No. 47, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deepak Kumar Lalwani S/o Santosh Kumar Lalwani Aged About 29 Years R/o Qr. No. 13, Raipur Naka Sindhi Colony, Ward No. 47, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ashish Kumar Lalwani S/o Santosh Kumar Lalwani Aged About 22 Years R/o Qr. No. 13, Raipur Naka Sindhi Colony, Ward No. 47, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Brijesh Kumar Prajapati S/o Rajendra Prajapati Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Motipur, Police Station Bhatani, District Devriya Uttar Pradesh. Through Central Highway Corporation, Behind Banocha Petrol Pump, Telibanda Raipur, Tashil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver and Owner). 2 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Chouhan, Estate (Towers) Beside Chandra Mourya Talkies, G.E. Road, Supela, Police Station Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate appears along with Mr. Pravesh Gupta Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.09.11 11:20:03 +0530 2 08.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) has been filed by the claimant aggrieved by award dated 29.04.2019 passed by the learned IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) (for short learned Tribunal) in Claim Case No.237/2018. 2. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,79,244/- in favour of the appellants/claimants as compensation on account of death of deceased Bimla Lalwani in an unfortunate accident that occurred on 03.02.2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. CG-04-JA-1994 by respondent No.1-driver and owner and insured with respondent No.2 / insurance company. 3. The appellants / claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.56,30,056 /- . As per pleadings, the deceased was aged about 52 years, working as vegetable seller and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Therefore, the said compensation was claimed. Respondent No. 1 Driver-cum- Owner filed their written and resisted the claim averments on various grounds and respondent No.2/insurance company took a plea that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company. It was also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 4. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues, 3 decided those issues in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded aforestated compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though it has been pleaded that the deceased was earning by doing vegetable selling, however, looking to the domestic services provided by the deceased, it cannot be evaluated in terms of money. Therefore, adequate assessment for her earning may be made and compensation may be enhanced suitably. 6. Learned counsel for respondents supports the award and submits that the learned Tribunal after proper appreciation of evidence, the income has been rightly assessed and just compensation has been awarded. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 8. It is not a case of financial dependency in the strict sense; however, the household work and services performed by a spouse also constitute a valuable form of contribution to the family. Such services, which ensure the well-being, maintenance, and smooth functioning of the household, are recognized as a form of dependency and are required to be duly considered by the learned Tribunal. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in this regard is, therefore, wholly unjustified and contrary to settled principles of law. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and ors., (2010) 9 SCC 218 it was held as below - 4 “26. In India the Courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children. 27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of housewife/mother. In that context, the term `services' is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependents cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 62. Alternative to imputing money values is to measure the time taken to produce these services and compare these with the time that is taken to produce goods and services which are commercially viable. One has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered by women in the household sustain a supply of labour to the economy and keep human societies going by weaving the social fabric and keeping it in good repair. If we take these services for granted and do not attach any value to this, this may escalate the unforeseen 5 costs in terms of deterioration of both human capabilities and social fabric.” 10. In view of above and taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court hereby computes the compensation in the following manner - Sn. Heads Calculation 1 Monthly salary Rs.8500/- 2 Future prospects 10% (8500 + 850) Rs.9350/- 3 Yearly income ( 9350 x12) Rs.1,12,200/- 4 1/3 deduction for personal expenses (1,12,200-37400) Rs.74,800/- 5. Multiplier of 11 ( 74,800 X 11) Rs.8,22,800/- 6. Funeral expenses + loss of Estate Rs.30,000/- 7. Spousal Consortium and Parental Consortium 1,20,000/- (40,000/- each to A-1 to A-3) TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.9,72,800/- 11.The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,79,244/- which is deducted from the total compensation now awarded and the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.2,93,556/-. Looking to the facts and 6 circumstances of the case, interest @ 6% is also awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 17.07.2019 to be deposited by the insurance company within a period of 60 days. On such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal shall pass an appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of enhanced amount to appellants/claimants Nos. 1 to 3. 12. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Arpan