The main legal point established in the judgment is the reassessment of compensation for the deceased, considering her notional income as that of a highly skilled worker and disallowing deduction towards personal expenses.

SURINDER GUPTA, J.

1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') vide award dated 17.12.2012 allowed compensation of Rs.6,80,548/- for death of Babita @ Babli, wife of appellant No.1 and mother of appellants No.2 to 5, in a motor vehicle accident with Trolla bearing registration No.HR-55G-8642 (later referred to as 'the offending vehicle').

2. As the only issue involved in this appeal relates to quantum of compensation as awarded by Tribunal, detailed facts of the case are being skipped for the sake of brevity.

3. The compensation awarded was computed as follows:-

Sr. No.	Heads	Calculation
(i)	Name of the deceased	Babita @ Babli
(ii)	Age of the deceased	32 years
(iii)	Income of the deceased	Rs.3000 p.m.
(iv)	Deduction towards personal expenses @ 1/4th	Rs.3000-750=Rs.2250 p.m. i.e. Rs.27000 p.a.
(v)	Multiplier applied 16	Rs.27000 X 16 = Rs.432000/-
(vi)	Loss of consortium	Rs.10000/-
(vii)	Funeral expenses	Rs.10000/-
(viii)	Medical/hospitalisation expenses	Rs.228548/-
Total		Rs.6,80,548/-

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his submission on two grounds; firstly that income of the deceased Babita @ Babli, a house wife, who left behind her husband and four minor children, assessed as Rs.3000/- per month by the tribunal is on lower side. This income is even less than the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government. While relying on the observations of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sube Singh and others, FAO No.218 of 2014 (decided on 15.01.2014), learned counsel for the appellant has argued that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that wife is more than a skilled worker, as she manages entire house and her notional income as assessed by the tribunal as Rs.9000/- was upheld. Secondly, that the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as equal to casual worker for the services provided by her but made deduction of 1/3rd from her income which is not permissible. The amount of compensation allowed towards loss of consortium is also on lower side.

5. Learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the tribunal has allowed the compensation to the claimants on the basis of evidence on record. The facts of the case United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sube Singh and others (supra) are not before this court. The notional income of the deceased was assessed keeping in view the prevailing price index and status of the family, as such the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month.

6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sube Singh and others (supra) has observed that “To take a house wife as a skilled labourer alone does not do complete justice to her multifarious role as a Home Manger”. It was observed that “a house wife is something more than mere a skilled worker” and “it would not be unreasonable to estimate her contribution in that case at a higher figure than a skilled worker”. Agreeing with the observation of Co-ordinate Bench, I take value of contribution of deceased towards her family equivalent to highly skilled worker and assessed her notional income keeping in view the minimum wages prescribed for highly skilled worker as Rs.5200/- per month.

7. I also agree with learned counsel for the appellants that from the notional income assessed for the services rendered by housewife, no deduction could be made towards her personal expenses. A compensation of Rs.30,000/- (keeping in view the fact that death was caused in the year 2011) for loss of consortium is also allowed to appellant No.1.

8. Keeping in view the above discussion, the compensation to which the claimants are entitled, is reassessed as follows:-

Sl.No.	Heads	Calculation
(i)	Income of the dec