IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

212 FAO-4463-2001 and FAO-2274-2002 Date of decision :17.02.2026 PARKASH AND ANOTHER ... APPELLANTS VERSUS ADARSH VERMA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate and Ms. Kulwinder Kaur, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Appellants-claimants have filed two appeals which are being taken up together as both the claim petitions preferred by appellants-claimants were decided by common impugned award dated 14.09.2008, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). Appellants-claimants in FAO No. 4463 of 2002 being husband and minor daughter of deceased Rupa Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.2,38,400/- and appellants- claimants in FAO No.2274 of 2001 being father and sister of the deceased being aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.50,000/- by learned Tribunal have sought enhancement of compensation.

2. It is the case of the appellants-claimants that deceased Rupa Devi and minor child Amit died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 27.12.1999 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving Tata 407 bearing registration No.CH-01-K-7421.

3. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is with regards to quantum of compensation and there is no appeal or cross-objection preferred by respondents to challenge manner of accident, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed for the sake of brevity.

4. Appellants-claimants have sought enhanced compensation. However, learned counsel for respondents has argued that sufficient amount has already been given as compensation in the present case and there is no scope of any enhancement.

FAO No. 4463 of 2001

5. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following com- pensation in the claim petition filed by the husband and minor daughter of de-

ceased Rupa Devi:

Income Rs. 1,800/- per month Deduction 1/3^rd Multiplier 16 Medical expenses Rs.8,000/-

Total compensation awarded Rs.2,38,400/-

6. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants have sought enhancement of compensation on following grounds that:-

● Income of deceased was not correctly taken. That the income of the deceased taken by learned Tribunal is on the lower side. That deceased was 26 years of age at the time of accident and was a home-maker. Learned Tribunal ought to have taken income of deceased as per the minimum wages payable to unskilled worker prevalent at the time of accident.

● Future prospects were not added while determining loss of dependency. Future prospects to the extent 40% of monthly income needs to be added as the deceased was 26 years of age at the time of accident.

● Multiplier applied by learned Tribunal is ‘16’ whereas, keeping in view the age of deceased as 26 years old at the time of accident the multiplier of ‘17’ ought to have been granted.

● Appropriate amount of compensation amount needs to be granted under the head funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of filial and parental consortium in accordance with law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7. Merely because deceased was housewife, her contribution towards family cannot be considered any lesser than an earning member. A housewife contributes immensely towards the welfare of family and her contribution can- not be less than an earning member, who would have earned and contributed to the family in terms of money. This view of mine find support from Kirti Singh & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 478. The deceased in the present case was 26 years of age and was a home-maker. The minimum wage for an unskilled worker prevailing at the time of the accident was admittedly Rs.2,100/- per month. Therefore, income of deceased is taken as Rs.2,10