IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1716 of 1999 Date of decision:06.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Parlad Rai and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal on the issue of quantum on the ground that the claim by the parents-in-law for of the death of daughter-in-law is not maintainable. The claimants' son had also died in the accident which had been subject of an independent claim. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the parents-in-law could not be said to be dependents on the deceased and, therefore, the petition itself is not maintainable. It must be noticed that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, in the absence of children and husband, on the death of a female, heirs of the husband shall be the legal heirs. The father and mother are the heirs of FAO No.1716 of 1999 - 2 - the husband and, therefore, they shall be taken as legal heirs. The maintainability of the petition cannot therefore be doubted. 3. The extent of dependence may probably vary and it may not normally happen that the parents-in-law could be stated to be dependents on the daughter-in-law. However, it ought to make a difference in a case where the son of the claimants has also died. In an ordinary Indian social setting, a daughter-in-law moves into the family of her husband and takes care of the household. In this case, the deceased was a householder. We have come by a gradual acknowledgment of gender equality as a constitutional scheme and the increasing recognition of the value of contribution of womanhood to the sum of economic prosperity and social felicity. Housewives have obtained a new moniker as homemakers. In Arun Kumar Agarwal and another Versus National Insurance Company and others, decided on 26 th July, 2010 in Civil Appeal No.5843 of 2010 reported in 2010 RAJ 262, the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of death of a woman in a road accident and sounded on the global approaches in the matter of an assessment of contribution of a householder to the family. 4. The Bench spoke through two independent judgments voicing similar concerns. Mr. Justice A.K. Ganguly referred to a judgment of a Division Bench of Madras High Court in National Insurance Company Versus Minor Deepika in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3049 of 2007 and others on 27.04.2009 reported in 2009 (6) MLJ 1005 that quoted several international conventions and the need for appropriately assessing the value of the homemakers' services. The FAO No.1716 of 1999 - 3 - Division Bench of the Madras High Court, speaking through Ms. Justice Prabha Sridevan, underscored the contribution of a householder in the following words:- “......that there have been efforts to understand the value of a homemaker's unpaid labour by different methods. One is, the opportunity cost which evaluates her wages by assessing what she would have earned had she not remained at home, viz., the opportunity lost. The second is, the partnership method which assumes that a marriage is an equal economic partnership and in this method, the homemaker's salary is valued at half her husband's salary. Yet another method is to evaluate homemaking by determining how much it would cost to replace the homemaker with paid workers. This is called the Replacement Method.” The role of a housewife includes managing budgets, co-ordinating activities, balancing accounts, helping children with education, managing help at home, nursing care etc. One formula that has been arrived at determines the value of the housewife as,Value of housewife=husband's income-wife's income + value of husband's household services, which means the wife's value will increase inversely proportionate to the extent of participation by the husband in the household duties. The Australian Family Property Law provides that while distributing properties in matrimonial matters, for instance, one has to factor in “the contribution made by a party to the marriage to the welfare of the family constituted by the parties to the marriage and any children of the marriage, including any contribution made in the capacity of a homemaker or parent.” The Supreme Court approved of the observation in paragraph 13 of the Division Bench in Deepika “that time has come to scientifically assess the value of the unpaid homemaker both in accident claims and in matters of division of matrimonial properties.” 5. In Deepika, the Court ultimately suggested that the householder's contribution must be taken as 50% of the husband's contribution to the family. I am setting this out only to answer to a particular approach advocated by the learned counsel for the insurer that the parents-in-law could not have been treated as dependents and the FAO No.1716 of 1999 - 4 - claim petition must have been dismissed. I have already held that it is not unusual that a daughter-in-law takes care of the parents-in-law in her husband's house. The situation is truly poignant in this case that the claimants have lost their son also. The presence of a daughter-in-law and the value of her services could never be under-estimated in Indian situation. Daughters-in-law are not for burning. Such incidents are exceptions and before long, they shall be forgotten experiences, if the society acts with resolve to stamp out this scourge, in thought and in action in assigning to a daughter-in- law an inferior role in the homemaking. The daughter- in- law is the carrier of family tradition to the generation next; a living embodiment of sacrifice; a repository of traditional values and an amalgam of husband’s family practices with biological family’s upbringing. The Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.96,000/- and provided that the father-in-law would take Rs.24,000/- and the mother-in-law would be given Rs.72,000/-. It is this award that is in appeal. I find no merit in the appeal and it deserves dismissal. There ought not to have been even an appeal on a matter like this and more so, on the issue of quantum. 6. The award is confirmed in all respects and the appeal is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000 payable to the P & H Mediation Center. A copy of this judgment is marked to the Mediation Center to claim the costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.08.2010 sanjeev