ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the quantum of compensation awarded vide award dated 09.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (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 in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

-2- Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1 Monthly income Rs.3,000/-

2 Annual Income [Rs.3,000/- x 12] = Rs.36,000/-

3 Multiplier of 14 [Rs.36,000/- x 14] = Rs.5,04,000/-

4 Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-

5 Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-

6 Loss of Consortium :

Rs.1,00,000/- (to husband of the deceased) 7 Total Compensation Rs.7,29,000/-

8. Interest 9% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the deceased in the present case was a housewife and that her income has erroneously been assessed as Rs.3,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs.5,695/- 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 view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121]; 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] .

5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has contended that the amount awarded under the head "consortium" i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- is on the higher side as the same has been -3- given towards loss of love and affection and consortium to all the three claimants. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would further contend that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.

(supra) an amount of Rs.40,000/- should have been given under the head “loss of consortium” and an amount of 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.3,000/- per month. However, there is no basis for assessing the same @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The minimum wage for an unskilled laborer at the relevant time was Rs.5,695/- per month.

A housewife does much more than a single labourer can do. 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.3,000/- as assessed is, therefore, wholly erroneous. Taking the minimum wages of an unskilled laborer at the relevant time as Rs.5,695/-, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.5,700/- per month.

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

-4- “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