FAO No. 1185 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 1185 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.3.2010 Union of India and others .. Appellants v. Ashish Mitter and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The owner and driver of the vehicle is in appeal challenging the award dated 8.10.2009, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, (for short, `the Tribunal’), wherein on account of the death of Neeru Sharma, wife of respondent No. 1 and mother of respondent No. 2, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,23,000/-. Briefly, the facts are that on 3.3.2008, Neeru Sharma along with her husband and minor child were proceeding on motor cycle bearing No. PB-04- 2251 for Hadiabad (Phagwara). When they reached near Chaheru Bai Bridge, a Military truck bearing No. 03-D-154439, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently came from behind and struck into the motor cycle. As a result of the accident, Neeru Sharma sustained head injury. Ultimately, Neeru Sharma succumbed to the injuries. In the claim petition filed by the claimants, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,23,000/-. It is against this award that the driver and owner are in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the deceased was carrying on the business of beauty parlour. The learned Tribunal assessed the income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. In addition to that, Rs. 3,000/- per month was assessed as her contribution in terms of service to the family, which was totally un-called for, once it was claimed that she was in profession. Considering the aforesaid facts, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is highly exhorbitant and deserves FAO No. 1185 of 2010 [2] to be set aside. He further submitted that respondent No. 1 can re-marry and in those circumstances, there cannot possibly be any loss of income or anything to him. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It was proved on record in the form of evidence led by the claimants (vide certificate Ex. PF) that deceased-Neeru Sharma was a trained Cosmetologist. Her income from that profession was claimed to be Rs. 10,000/- per month. In addition to that, the claimants even produced one of the customers of deceased-Neeru Sharma. who stated that his wife used to visit her beauty parlour for getting various services. Once it was established on record that the deceased was a qualified Cosmetologist, it is generally seen that a lot of girls/house-wives carry on this profession at their residence only to supplement the household income. Even as against the claim of Rs. 10,000/- per month as her income from the profession, the learned Tribunal merely assessed the same at Rs. 3,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be on the higher side and the same is the position with regard to the valuation of the services provided by her to the family even being a house-wife, which cannot be faulted with. Still further, the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that respondent No. 1-claimant may re-marry and consequently there would not be any loss to him also has no legs to stand. No judgment was cited in support of the argument that the issue regarding determination of compensation should be kept pending to wait for any future eventuality. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.3.2010 mk