The court emphasized the assessment of notional income and the application of multipliers in determining compensation for victims of accidents.

JUDGMENT :

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 06.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 2,72,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that on 05.08.2009 Gurmail Kaur along with her son Sandeep Singh was travelling on a Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing registration No. PB-10-AM-4701. They were coming from Dango-Pakhowal Road and when they reached at T-Point of Village Sarabha and were waiting to cross the road, an Indica Car bearing registration No. PB-10-CA-1732 came from Ludhiana side at a very high speed on the wrong side of the road and struck against the scooter of Sandeep Singh. Due to the impact, Gurmail Kaur and her son, Sandeep Singh, fell on the road. Both Gurmail Kaur and Sandeep Singh received grievous injuries. Gurmail Kaur succumbed to her injuries and Sandeep Singh was eventually referred to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana where he was stated to be under treatment. The accident was witnessed by one Sarabjit Singh son of Ranjit Singh.

3. The claim petition was filed by the husband of the deceased, Gurmail Kaur, wherein it was averred that the deceased was 61 years old at the time of the accident and she was running a dairy business and earning Rs. 34,000/- per annum.

4. On notice, respondent No. 1 appeared and filed his written statement taking the preliminary objection that the claim petition filed was totally false and frivolous. The factum of the accident was also denied.

5. Respondent No. 2 filed her written statement raising the preliminary objection that respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and that the car was insured with respondent No. 3. On merits, it was denied that respondent No. 1 was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner.

6. Respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company filed a separate written statement denying the facutm of the accident. It was further averred that respondent No. 3 was not liable to pay the compensation in case the accident was proved since no policy particulars had been supplied to respondent No. 3 either by the claimant or by the other respondents.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record, the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 2,72,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the claimant-appellant has preferred the present appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a house wife and her notional income had been assessed as Rs. 3,000/- whereas as per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. National Insurance Company and Others, 2010 AIR (SC) 3426, the notional income of a house wife had been assessed as Rs. 5,000/-.

10. It was further contended that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads and the consortium were also on the lower side and not as per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company has contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper. The notional income of the house wife had correctly been assessed as Rs. 3,000/- and there is no scope of any enhancement.

12. The only issue in the present case is regarding the quantum of compensati