JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

CM-22339-CII-2023

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 33 days in filing the main appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 33 days in filing the main appeal is condoned.

FAO-6460-2023

3. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award dated 17.07.2023.

4. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

5. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

6. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that though the claimant-appellants do not challenge the deduction, the addition made towards future prospects and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal, however, the deceased in the present case was a homemaker and her income has been assessed as Rs.8,000 only. While relying upon the judgment in the case of Kirti & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 478] learned counsel has contended that the income of the homemaker ought to have been assessed as per the rate prevalent for a skilled worker at the time of the accident. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral expenses as well as under the head 'loss of consortium' are not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently contended that the deceased in the present case was 59 years of age who would not be contributing as much to the house and to the household activities as a person of a younger age. Hence, the income has rightly been assessed. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

8. Heard.

9. In the present case the deceased was a homemaker aged about 59 years at the time of the accident. The argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that a homemaker at the age of 59 years would not be contributing as much to the household activities as a person of younger age hence she ought not to be considered as a skilled person deserves to be rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti (supra) has held as under :

'42. Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation which can be summarized as follows:

a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.

b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. I