113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.01.2026 INDER SAIN AND ORS. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS NANHE RAM AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: None for the appellants.

Mr. Saurav Gumbal, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred claimants-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) vide the impugned award dated 17.04.2003, in a case arising from motor vehicle accident dated 15.09.2000.

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 herein for sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded Rs. 96,000/- as compensation after taking income of deceased to be Rs. 1,000/- and by applying multiplier of 8.

4. Learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants asserts that in the present case the deceased was a homemaker and the income ought to have been assessed as Rs. 1,915 per month which was the minimum wage for an unskilled worker at the time of the accident. It is further contended that though no deduction was applied in the present case, however, the number of claimants is 3, 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. The learned counsel furthers asserts that wrong multiplier has been applied and 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 his contentions, the learned counsel for the claimants-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 FAO-1503-2021 (O&M) 3 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. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased, who was admittedly a homemaker as Rs. 1,000/- and not on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident. A homemaker performs multiple functions in the house and her contribution is not less than an earning member. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti (supra) had held as under :

“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 as follows:

a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.

b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.

c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too libe