IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 10.03.2026 Shahid ... Appellant Versus Pawan Kumar and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Ms. Jhuma Rani, Advocate for Mr. Mohammed Arshad, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Notice of motion.

2. Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company and states that present appeal can be disposed off today itself.

CM-13475-CII-2019

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 457 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. However, the claimant-appellant shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay.

FAO-4108-2019 (O&M)

4. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 14.11.2017 on account of death of Arshida (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) which took place on 15.03.2017.

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

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

7. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that though she does not challenge the deduction, multiplier and the future prospects as applied by the Tribunal however, she has contended that the deceased in the present case was a homemaker and the Tribunal has assessed her income as ₹5,000/- 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 her contention, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant 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-appellant 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 her contention, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has relied on 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]

8. 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 in the present case there is only one claimant hence a deduction of 1/2 ought to have been applied instead of 1/3^rd keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 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.

9. Heard.

10. Admittedly, no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. Since there is no challenge to the deduction, multiplier and the future prospects as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained. The argument of learned counsel for the claimant-appellant that the income of the deceased, who was a homemaker, ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of time, deserves to be accepted. In case of Kirti (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court whil