IMPORTANT POINT
The assessment of a housewife's contribution to family income cannot be equated to minimum wages, and loss of consortium must adhere to established legal standards.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 1.9.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Kangra at Dharmshala (for short the ‘Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.40-D/II of 2012.

2. Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as claimants) filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of Smt. Krishna Devi Pal, who was mother of claimants No. 1 to 3 and wife of claimant No.4 respectively. Smt. Krishna Devi Pal was alleged to have died in a motor vehicle accident involving Truck bearing Registration No. MP-04HE-1246. It was the case of the claimants that on 15.12.2011, Smt. Krishna Devi Pal was crossing the road at Village Rajol, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. At about 10. AM, the offending Truck bearing Registration No. MP-04HE-1246 came in high speed and hit the deceased causing multiple injuries and consequent death. The cause of accident was alleged to be rash and negligent driving of respondent No.6 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘driver’). The Truck was owned by respondent No.5 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘owner’).

3. The deceased was stated to be 39 years old at the time of her death. The deceased was a housewife.

4. The owner and driver jointly contested the claim petition by alleging that the deceased suddenly entered the main road, without waiting for moving traffic on the road. As per them, though, the truck was being driven in a very slow speed, yet due to the negligence of deceased, she could not be saved from being hit. The fact that the offending vehicle was insured by the appellant at the time of accident was also disclosed.

5. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurer’) separately contested the claim petition by raising preliminary objections as to maintainability of the claim petition and contravention of terms and conditions of the policy.

6. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“i) Whether on 15.12.2011, at about 10.45 AM, at village Rajol due to rash and negligent driving of respondent number 2, death of Krishna Devi was caused in the accident, as alleged? OPP

ii) If issue number 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent? OPP

iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-3.

iv) Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance that too without route permit, registration certificate etc., as alleged? OPR-3.

v) Relief.”

7. Issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in affirmative and the remaining issues were decided in negative. The claim petition was accordingly allowed and the claimants have been held entitled to compensation of Rs. 14,16,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization. The apportionment has also made by the learned Tribunal as under:-

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

9. Learned counsel for the insurer has fairly confined his arguments to the extent that the impugned award was excessive in so far as quantum of compensation was concerned. He submitted that the income of the deceased was wrongly assessed at Rs. 4000/- per month. According to him, the deceased was a housewife having no actual income and for such reason her income was required to be assessed notionally on the basis of the minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act. On this premise, it has been submitted that the annual income of the deceased could not be assessed to be more than 3600/- per month. He further stated that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/5th of the income of deceased towards personal expenses whereas, it had to be 1/4th by applying