F.A.O.No.832 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) F.A.O.No.832 of 1986 Dayal Singh and others .........Appellants Versus Hardip Singh and others ..........Respondents 2) F.A.O.No.833 of 1986 Parmanand Sahni and others .........Appellants Versus Hardip Singh and others ..........Respondents 3) F.A.O.No.34 of 1987 Ranjit Singh and others .........Appellants Versus Hardip Singh and others ..........Respondents Dated of decision : 11.11.2008 CORAM :HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ..... Present : Mr.G.S. Sawhney, Advocate for the appellants in F.A.O.Nos.832 & 833 of 1986. Mrs.Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellants in F.A.O.No.34 of 1987. Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.3 in all the three appeals. ... MAHESH GROVER, J. F.A.O.No.832 of 1986 -2- This order will dispose of the three aforesaid appeals which are directed against the common award dated 19.7.1986. Three separate claim petitions were preferred by the claimants/appellants on account of the deaths of Kuldip Kaur, Agya Kaur and Prem Kumari alias Prem Kaur in the accident which occurred on 17.3.1985. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation to the claimants in the said claim petitions :- i) For the death of Kuldip Kaur Rs.48,000/- ii) For the death of Agya Kaur Rs.14,400/- iii) For the death of Prem Kumari @ Prem Kaur Rs.17,800/- Dissatisfied with the award the appellants in appeals have contended that the amounts awarded are grossly inadequate. Reliance is placed on Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 197 wherein the apex court has observed as under :- “10. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000 per annum in cases of some and Rs.10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the F.A.O.No.832 of 1986 -3- claimants, who ought to have given data for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the data for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3000 per month and Rs.36,000 per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded therefore, should be recalculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs.36,000 and thereafter applying the multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs.50,000 instead of Rs.25,000 given under the Report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs.10,000 per annum and the multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier is correct, but the values of services rendered at Rs.10,000 per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs.20,000 per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be redetermined, taking the value of services rendered at Rs.20,000 per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter, adding F.A.O.No.832 of 1986 -4- Rs.50,000 towards the conventional figure.” I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and am of the opinion that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are grossly unjust. F.A.O.No.34 of 1987 has been preferred by the appellants who are the husband and children of deceased Kuldip Kaur who died at the age of 39 years in the said accident. Even if the deceased is to be assessed as a house wife her notional income should have been taken as Rs.3,000/- per month in view of the observations made in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra), as this is the amount which she would have been contributing to the services rendered toward the household. Her income is, therefore, determined as Rs.3,000/- per month. A multiplier of 16 is applied keeping in view the schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act which is the guiding factor. The compensation in this manner works out to Rs.3,000x12x16 =5,76,000/-. An amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of consortium etc. Thus, the total compensation in F.A.O.No.34 of 1987 is computed as Rs.5,96,000/-. In so far as F.A.O.No.832 of 1986 is concerned, deceased Agya Kaur was aged 55 years and she was also a house wife. In view of the observations of the apex court in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra), taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and by applying a multiplier of 11, keeping in view the age of the deceased, the compensation is assessed at Rs.3,96,000/- (3000x12x11). The appellants are also held entitled to a sum of F.A.O.No.832 of 1986 -5- Rs.20,000/- on account of funeral expenses and loss of consortium, etc. In this manner, the total compensation in F.A.O.No.832 of 1986 works out to Rs.4,16,000/-. The third appeal bearing F.A.O.No.833 of 1986 has been filed by the legal representatives of Prem Kumari alias Prem Kaur deceased. She was aged 52 years at the time of her death and was a house wife. Adopting the aforesaid principle and applying the multiplier of 11, the compensation is assessed at Rs.3,96,000/- and by adding Rs.20,000/- on account of funeral expenses and loss of consortium etc., the total compensation works out to Rs.4,16,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. The amount shall be paid to the appellants in equal shares. The liability to satisfy the award shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. Consequently, all the three appeals are allowed. 11.11.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss