232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 12.02.2026 Mahesh & Ors ... Appellant(s)

Versus Har Deepak Singh & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Johan Kumar Jangra, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate with Mr. Harmeet Singh, 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, Palwal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 17.01.2017 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 02.05.2016.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to 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 ₹4,000/-

2 Annual Income ₹48,000/- [₹4,000 x 12]

3 Multiplier - 18 ₹8,64,000/- [₹48,000 x 18]

4 Funeral expenses ₹10,000/-

Total Compensation ₹8,74,000/

Interest 7.5% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants states that he does not challenge the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that the deceased in the present case was a homemaker and that her income has been assessed on the lower side. Learned counsel for the claimant- appellants would further contend that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as ₹10,180/- per month which was the minimum wage for a skilled worker at the time of the accident. It is further the contention that though no deduction has been applied in the present case, however, the number of claimants is five, hence, 1/4^th deduction would be applicable. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 40%. It is further the contention that no compensation has been awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 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]; N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642] and Kirti & Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(1) RCR (Civil) 478]

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed by the Tribunal. 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.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the present case, admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. Since no challenge has been laid down by the learned counsel for the appellants to the multiplier, the same is accordingly maintained.

8. The argument of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side deserves to be accepted. In the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased, who was admittedly a homemaker, as ₹4,000/- per month. A homemaker does much more than a single person can do. Infact, a homemaker performs multiple functions in the house i.e. cooking for the family, cleaning the house, washing clothes and utensils, the list is endless. A homemaker is also a caretaker of her children as well as all the members of the house. In the case of Kirti (supra), Hon’ble Supre