265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.11.2025 PARVEEN KUMAR AND ANR. .... Appellants VERSUS MOHAMMAD ANIS AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.01.2023.

2. 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.

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

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1. Monthly income ₹8,000

2. Deduction 1/3^rd [₹8,000 -₹2,665] = ₹5,335

3. Annual income [₹5,335 x 12] = ₹64,020 (rounded off to ₹64,000)

4. Multiplier of 16 [₹64,000 x 16] = ₹10,24,000

5. Funeral expenses ₹15,000 6. Loss of estate ₹15,000 7. Loss of consortium ₹40,000 Total Compensation ₹10,94,000 Interest @ 6.00% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as ₹8,000 per month by the Tribunal which ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker i.e. ₹11,235 per month keeping in view the fact that the deceased was running a stitching and training center under the name of ‘Sudesh Silai Centre’. It is further contended that even otherwise in the absence of any evidence if the deceased is treated as a homemaker the income would have to be assessed as that of a skilled worker. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirti & Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 478]. Learned counsel would further contend that the multiplier of ‘16’ has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal, whereas it ought to have been ‘17’ keeping in view the age of the deceased being 30 years at the time of the accident. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 40%. Learned counsel would still further contend that though the claimant-appellants do not challenge the deduction as made by the Tribunal, however, the amounts awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral expenses are on the lower side. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgments of 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, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as ₹8,000 per month. Though there is no evidence qua the income being earned by way of stitching, however, even if the deceased was to be considered as a homemaker, the income would have to be assessed as that of a skilled worker. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti (supra), while emphasizing upon the contribution made by a homemaker and the services rendered by a woman in a household, observed that there can be no exact calculation or formula that can ascertain the actual value provided by a homema