The main legal point established in the judgment is the invaluable nature of a housewife's contribution, the correct application of multipliers for compensation, and the assessment of compensation under conventional heads.

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

CM Nos.485-486-CII of 2016

There is application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration and an application for restoration of the appeal as well.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has no objection if the applications are allowed.

CMs are allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number.

Main case is taken on board with the consent of both parites.

FAO No.718 of 2002

The present appeal is against the award dated 5.9.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short 'the Tribunal').

2. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation for death of Bhajan Kaur.

3. Bhajan Kaur aged 45 years lost her life in a motor vehicular accident on 15.5.1998. She was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.PBM-3303. The said jeep was struck by a tanker bearing registration No. PBP 5910, as a result of the accident, she suffered multiple injuries and lost her life. FIR was also logged.

4. On the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,58,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.

6. The grievance raised by learned counsel for the appellant is two fold, firstly that the deceased was a house wife and her monthly income has been taken as Rs.1000/- per month only which is on the lower side and the multiplier of 13 has been wrongly applied instead of 14. Secondly, he contended that the amount awarded under conventional heads is of Rs.2000/- only

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the amount awarded is just and equitable. Hence, no more enhancement is called for.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to multiplier to be applied is fully supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr, 2009 (3) RCR (civil) 77. As per the said decision, a multiplier of 14 should have been applied when the deceased was 45 years old.

9. So far the determination of monthly income of a house wife is concerned, the duties of the house wife are 24 X 7. She works without any remuneration. The love and affection of the family keeps her going. Apart from looking after the family, she performs the matrimonial duties as well.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others Versus Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, 2015 (4) SCC 237, has held as under:

''Even assuming Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi was not self-employed doing embroidery and tailoring work, the fact remains that she was a housewife and a home maker. It is hard to monetize the domestic work done by a house-mother. The services of the mother/wife is available 24 hours and her duties are never fixed. Courts have recognised the contribution made by the wife to the house is unvaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of money. A house-wife/home-maker does not work by the clock and she is in constant attendance of the family throughout and such services rendered by the home maker has to be necessarily kept in view while calculating the loss of dependency.''

11. Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the duties of the house maker cannot be underestimated and it is very difficult to equate the same in monetary terms.

12. From a perusal of the award, it is evident that the Tribunal has equated the contribution of the deceased house wife with the salary of the maid. It is unfortunate that the contribution of mother, wife and a house maker has been equated with salary of a maid which is kept after her death.

13. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and the fact that she was survived by husband and two minor children, her monthly earning is assessed at Rs.2500/- per mo