Accident--Personal Expenses--In case of House wife since notional income is taken therefore one-third deduction is not warranted.

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 11.02.2013 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

2. On 19.04.2011, Bahadur Singh was going on his bicycle along with his wife Bhuri Kaur from Samana to their village near Chak Amritsaria, Samana-Patran Road, a Tata Tempo-709 bearing registration No.HR-37-A-0929 (for short, 'the offending vehicle') struck the bicycle. The offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, Bhuri Kaur lost her life and Bahadur Singh suffered injuries. FIR No.27 dated 19.04.2011 was registered at Police Station City Samana.

3. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') was filed by three major children and husband of the deceased.

4. The Tribunal after considering the witnesses and evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.2,69,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The said amount included Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses and loss of dependency compensation is Rs.2,64,000/-.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook with their able assistance.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased was 42 years old housewife, survived by three major children and a husband. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the conventional heads. He further argued that in case of house wife, the amount should not have been deducted for self expenses as the income assessed is notional income. He further contended that in case of death of 42 years old, multiplier of 11 has wrongly been applied.

7. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 have argued that loss of love and affection should not be granted as the children are major. They contended that amount awarded is sufficient and no further enhancement is called for.

8. The Tribunal while calculating the loss of dependency has taken the notional income as Rs.3,000/- per month. Thereafter, 1/3rd deduction for self expenses has been made and a multiplier of 11 has been applied.

9. In the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, observed as under :-

“21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”

10. From the perusal of the above decision, it is evident that in case of death of 42 years old, a multiplier of 14 has to be applied.

11. In case of a housewife, 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 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 recognized the contribution made by the wife to the house is unvaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of money. A housewife/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 dependancy.”

12. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court