IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 23.02.2026 RAHUL AGGARWAL & ANR .... Appellants VERSUS MOHAMMAD DANISH & ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Arjun Kundra, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-7228-CII-2023

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay 386 days in filing the appeal is condoned. However, the claimant- appellants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal.

FAO-1864-2023

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 15.10.2019.

3. 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.

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

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the deceased in the present case was 50 years old and that her income has wrongly been assessed as ₹4,000/- per month notionally. 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 further contend that no addition has been made towards future prospects and that a multiplier of 11 has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal which ought to have been 13 keeping in view the age of the deceased being 50 years at the time of the accident. It is further the contention that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral expenses and under the head loss of consortium 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]

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that in case an addition is made towards future prospects then the deduction of 1/3^rd ought to have been made towards personal expenses. It is further the contention 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, there is no appeal filed by respondent No.3- Insurance Company. The Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased as ₹4,000/- per month notionally. 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 gran