42 1r 1 FAOeNo540 of200908cMl 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAOeNoe540 of2009082M9 Date ofDecision 01122009 1 Gurdeep Singhand others SeeeAppellants VERSUS m L Kulcleep Kumar and others e 0 CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE ANJINDAL I 0 Presentl MrAshok Bector Advocate for the r I MrSimranjeet Kaur Advocate Z for Mrl3111Gill Advocate for No AllsVandana Malhotra Advocate for No3 a5 88888 11 ANJINDAL JORALI 7 This appealf enhancementis directedagainstthe awarddated Z 19112008 passedby Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rupnagarherein L7m 1 referred as the Tribunal awardingcompensationto the tune of 1 Rsl20000010alongwithlnterest 9Io per annum in favour of the 1 1 herein referred as the claimantsoand againstthe 1 jointlyand severallyon account of the death of RanjitKaur 40 years in a motor vehicular accident 1 The have neither challenged the negligence nor their liability to pay the However they have sought 4 enhancement on thegroundsthat the deceasedwas eaming RsO0001 per month and afterdeducting113 as his own net towardsthe claimantscomes to Rs63 00 permonth as such the Tribunal after applyingthe multiplierof 15 should have assessedthe U to the tune of Rsl340001 instead of Rs2000001 only which was assessedwithout applyingany principles Anita 2013.04.12 12: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 43 6 le e FAONoe540 of200908M1 2 Havingheardthe rival contentions it is noticed that the copy of 1 e postnortem report as well as statements of PW1 SurjitKaur and PW3 4 Avtar Singhthat RanjitKaur died at the age of 40 On account of her husbandbeingmissingfor the last 11 years the deceased alone was 1 and handlingthe affairs of the familyconsistingof her minor children and her in laws ie claimants NoA and 5 Thoughno cogent evidence was brought on record to prove the exact salaryof the deceased 1 yetthe situation and the guesswork warrants to infer that her income was not less than Rs0001 per month lt was observed by the Delhi High 0 Court in case Mathura Dutt vs DTC 2005 31Civil Court Cases 135 C3 thatin case of housewife contribution to the household must be treatedto I C5 be at the minimum of Rs30001 of the personsof an age group of 34 59 I yearsand after deducting 113 towardspersonal expenses multiplier of 16 should have been appliedThe relevantobseNations made in the aforesaid Z judgment are as under r Heard counsel for the partiesand have gone throughthe under challenge as also the above cited It I 1 to me that theSupreme Court hasenlarged thescope of 08 award of damages in cases under the Motor Vehicles Act in 9 The MunicipalCorporationof Greater BombayVe Shri 7 Z Laxman IyeO Anre 6supralby extending the judgment 111 Lata Wadhwas case supra9 to cases under the Motor Vehicles tl 1 1 1 Act In Lata Wadhwas case the SupremeCourt has 1 laid down that RsOOOIepermonth oughtto be 1 adopted as guideline in the case of housevife within the age 1 1 groupof 34 to 59 years The law havingcrystallized in Lata 1 1 Wadhwas case 6supralI see no reason whythereshould be any 1 departure from the same Drawingthe analogyfrom the aforesaidjudgmentsof the the HighCourt of n l Jammu and Kashmir in Oriental Insurance Company 1 Limited Ve ShamsherSingh Ors 6suprahas appliedthe law so laid down which to my mind is perfectlygoodlaw The role of the housewife tIl running a house is not that of rendering servlces as a slave Her contribution to keepingthe family together providinghousehold services besides Anita 2013.04.12 12: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 44 e FAe01170540 of200908cMl 3 1 matrimonialduties cannot be treatedlightly It has gotnothing to do with the earningcapacityof the husband which is an additionto what is taken care ofbythe house4vife No matter what the status of the familymay be the contribution of the 1 housevi fe towards household must be treated to be at minimum Rs0001 three thousandJ per month for an age roup of 3459 years as has beenlaid by theSupremeCourt in Lata Wadhwascase 6supraThe deceasedeamingofother age C groupshas also been dealt with by the Supreme Court and 0 would certainlybe goodguideline in considering the claim for 0P underthe Motor Vehicles Act C5 Takingout the ratio om the aforesaidjudgmentit would be proper to calculatethe compensation on the basisof fact that she was house wife agedabout 40 years Due to the sudden termination of her life her Z husbandbeingmissingthe children have been left in the lurch and facing r difflcuIty to survive Their futurecareer has beenmarredand may be facing starvation As such while the income of the deceased c I 1 Rs30001eper month and after deducting113 towards her personal a5 1 expensestilultiplier of 15 is the to be appliedin this case As such theclaimants are entitled to a sum of Rs600001 as w Z ln addition to it the claimants would also be entitled to a sum of Rso000a towards neral expensesand i this appealis partlyaccepted and the impugned awardis modified byenhancing t0 Rsl760001 However i the would also be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amountat the same rate as awardedby the Tribunal The remainingterms r ofthe award shall remain intact No order as to costs Judge 0112009 mamta41 1 0 Anita 2013.04.12 12: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document