The court established that a housewife's notional income should be assessed based on minimum wage standards, and conventional heads must align with Supreme Court precedents for just compensation.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

This order of mine shall dispose off the two above noted appeals being FAO-1108-2016 preferred by the claimant-appellants for enhancement and FAO-2669-2015 preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded vide award dated 03.12.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the deceased in the present case was a housewife and that her income has erroneously been assessed as Rs. 4,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would further contend that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs. 5,341/- which were the minimum wages at the relevant time. Though the multiplier has rightly been applied, however, no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]; Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has contended that the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection i.e. Rs. 4,00,000/- is on the higher side. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company would further contend that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra)an amount of Rs. 40,000/- should have been given under the head "loss of consortium" and an amount of Rs. 30,000/- under the conventional heads.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased, who was a housewife, as Rs. 4,000/- per month. However, there is no basis for assessing the same @ Rs. 4,000/- per month. The minimum wage of an unskilled labourer at the relevant time was Rs. 5,341/- per month. A housewife does much more. Infact, she performs multiple functions in the house i.e. cooking for the family, cleaning the house, washing clothes and utensils, the list is endless. A housewife is also a caretaker of her children as well as all the members of the house are taken care of by a housewife. The notional income i.e. Rs. 4,000/- as assessed is, therefore, wholly erroneous. Taking the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer at the relevant time as Rs. 5,341/-, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 5,341/- per month.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Paramjit Singh & Anr. v. Dilbagh Singh @ Bagga & Ors. [2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 895] has held as under :

"14. We may hasten to add that in all those cases, referred to above, in which 1/3rd cut has been applied, no reasoning has been given by the learned Single Judge rather in the cases, referred to above, in which 1/3rd cut has not been applied, the learned Single Judge had observed that Rs. 3,000/- per month is assessed as monthly value of her services and not her monthly income and, therefore, the concept of deduction cannot be applied. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of t