JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs.8,26,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization on account of death of Sunita in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 10.02.2018.

[2]. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS.

[3]. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the impugned award on multiple grounds. It was contended that the income of the deceased was assessed on the lower side and did not reflect her actual contribution to the family. He further argued that no addition towards future prospects was made, which was contrary to settled principles of law. The learned counsel submitted that the deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses was erroneous, particularly when there were six dependents, and the appropriate deduction ought to have been 1/5th. He also contended that no compensation was awarded towards loss of love and affection and parental consortium. Additionally, the amounts granted under conventional heads were stated to be inadequate. Lastly, it was urged that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and deserved enhancement.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS No. 1 & 2.

[4]. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents No. 1 & 2, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No. 3.

[5]. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company argued on the same lines as respondents No. 1 & 2 and submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

[6]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book of the case as well as the records of the ld. Tribunal. I find force in the arguments raised by the learning counsel for the appellants/claimants.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

[7]. In the present case, deceased was a 42 years old home maker, she ought to have been treated as a skilled worker on account of multifarious roles she would have been naturally playing in her home. Insofar as the question of quantum of income is concerned, the accident in question occurred on 10.02.2018, and the minimum wages for the year of 2018 were much higher than the notional income assessed by the learned Tribunal. Sight can also not be lost of the fact that in case of a male person, even if there is no evidence regarding the income, compensation is generally awarded after taking into consideration the minimum wages prevailing at that time. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in taking the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.8,000/- as against Rs.6,000/- taken by the Tribunal.

QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL AND LIVING EXPENSES.

[8]. Further, relying upon decision rendered by co-ordinate bench of this Court in case of “Gurtej Singh Vs. Gurnaib Singh” bearing FAO No. 1093 of 2019, no deduction is liable to be made from notional income of housewife. Furthermore, future prospects are required to be added to a homemaker’s notional income in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Rajendra Singh and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others”, reported as 2020 (3) RCR CIVIL 2