241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 12.02.2026 Ram Parsad and Another ... Appellants Versus Sudheer Kumar and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Ms. Mansi Majoka, Advocate for Mr. Bhisham Kumar Majoka, Advoate for the appellants.

Ms. Geetika Rani, Advocate for Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

CM-13176-CII-2019 & CM-13177-CII-2019

1. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. The delay of 38 days in filing and 41 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

FAO-3829-2019

2. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 18.09.2018 on account of death of Pappi Devi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), which took place on 15.11.2017.

3. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

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

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that though he does not challenge the multiplier and the future prospects as applied by the Tribunal however, he has contended that the deceased in the present case was a homemaker and the Tribunal has assessed her income as ₹3,000/- per month which is on the lower side inasmuch as at the relevant point of time, minimum wages for an unskilled worker were also more than the income assessed by the Tribunal. It is further contended that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of time. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kirti & Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 478]. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied on judgments of 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]

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased. It is further the contention that the Tribunal has not made any deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, which ought to have been 1/3^rd as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. It has further been contended that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

7. Heard.

8. Admittedly, no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. Since there is no challenge to the multiplier and the future prospects as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained. The argument of learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the income of the deceased, who was a homemaker, ought to have been assessed as per