IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 12.02.2026 NEMPAL AND ORS .... Appellants VERSUS HAWA SINGH AND ANR .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Kapish Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

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, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 03.01.2024.

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 had awarded the following compensation : Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1. Monthly income ₹10,098

2. Annual income [₹10,098 x 12] = ₹1,21,176

3. Deduction 1/3^rd [₹1,21,176 - ₹40,392] = ₹80,784 4. Future prospects @40% [₹80,784 + ₹32,312] = ₹1,13,096

5. Multiplier of 18 [₹1,13,096 x 18] = ₹20,35,728

6. Funeral expenses ₹16,500 7. Loss of estate ₹16,500 8. Loss of spousal consortium ₹40,000 Total Compensation ₹21,08,728 (rounded off to ₹21,09,000)

Interest @ 7.5% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the deceased in the present case was 20 years old and that her income has wrongly been assessed as ₹10,098/- per month on the basis of the minimum wages applicable to Class-IV. It is further contended that even 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 still further contend that though the claimant-appellants do not challenge the deduction made towards personal expenses, the addition made towards future prospects and the multiplier applied 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 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 counsel for respondent No.2-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. Admittedly, there is no appeal filed by respondent No.2- Insurance Company. In the present case the Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased as ₹10,098/- per month. Though there is no evidence qua the income of the deceased, 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 homemaker gratuitously. In order to streamline the calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them for the purposes of assessing the compensation, the following principles were laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court :

“42. Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation which can be summarized