Rajender and Others Vs Jagmal @ Jaggu and Another

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 05.09.2019 on account of death of Kamlesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’).

¶14

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 to herein for the sake of brevity.

¶15

The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following

¶16

compensation :

¶17

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation Awarded
1	Monthlyincome	₹6,000/-
2	Annual income	[₹6,000 x 12]= ₹72,000/-
3	Deduction–1/4^th	[₹72,000–18,000] =₹54,000/-

¶18

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.11.27 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

FAO-1317-2020

¶20

-2-

¶21

4	Multiplier–14	[₹54,000 x 14]= ₹7,56,000/-
5	Loss of consortium	₹40,000/-
6	Funeral expenses	₹15,000/-
7	Loss of estate	₹15,000/-
	Total Compensation	₹8,26,000/-
	Interest	7.5%per annum

¶22

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that though he does not challenge the deduction and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, however, he has contended that the deceased in the present case was a homemaker and the Tribunal has assessed her income as ₹6,000/- per month which is on the lower side inasmuch as at the relevant point of time minimum wages for an unskilled worker were also more than the income assessed by the Tribunal. It is further contended that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of time. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the Tribunal has also not made any addition towards loss of future prospects. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kirti & Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 478] .

¶23

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Admittedly, no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. Since there is no challenge to the deduction and the multiplier as applied by

¶26

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.11.27 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

FAO-1317-2020

¶28

-3-

¶29

the Tribunal, the same are maintained. The argument of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the income of the deceased, who was a homemaker, ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of time, deserves to be accepted. In case of Kirti (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasizing upon the contribution made by a homemaker and the services rendered by a woman in a household observed that there can be no exact calculation or formula that can ascertain the actual value provided by a homemaker gratuitously. In order to streamline the calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them for the purposes of assessing the compensation, the following principles were laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court :

¶30

“ 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:

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.11.27 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

FAO-1317-2020

¶35

-4-

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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 liberally.

¶39

e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation.”

¶40

In the present case, considering the extensive contribution of the deceased in the household and in the absence of any evidence regarding her exact income, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of time, which were ₹10,845/- per month. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is assessed as ₹10,845/- per month.

¶41

Further, the Tribunal has not made any addition towards loss of future prospects, which ought to have been made in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kirti (supra). Since the deceased was

¶42

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.11.27 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶43

FAO-1317-2020

¶44

-5-

¶45

45 years of age at the time of accident, an addition of 25% would be applicable towards loss of future prospects as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] .

¶46

Further, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ are not as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642] . Hence, the claimant-appellants would be entitled to ₹18,000/- (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000/- (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards funeral expenses as also to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of spousal and parental consortium.

¶47

Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :

¶48

Sr. No.	Heads	Compe	nsation Awarded
1	Monthly Income	₹10,845/-
2	Annual Income	₹1,30,140/-	[₹10,845 x 12]
3	Deduction -1/4^th	₹97,605/-	[₹1,30,140-₹32,535]
4	Future Prospects - 25%	₹1,22,007/-	[₹97,605 + ₹24,402]
5	Multiplier - 14	₹17,08,098/-	[₹1,22,007 x 14]
6	Loss of estate	₹18,000/-
7	Funeral expenses	₹18,000/-
8	Loss of consortium (i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 5] (ii) Spousal	₹2,40,000/- ₹48,000/- (Total₹2,88,0	00/-)
	Total Compensation	₹20,32,098/-

¶49

The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded

¶50

by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

¶51

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.11.27 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶52

FAO-1317-2020

¶53

-6-

¶54

filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

¶55

In view of the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [AIR 2025 SC 1713 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 567] , after calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be transferred by the Insurance Company in the bank account(s) of the claimants within six weeks from today and the apportionment thereof shall be as per the percentage directed by the Tribunal and the share of the minor claimant, if any, shall be kept in fixed deposits by the Bank concerned. The particulars of the bank account(s) alongwith the requisite documents(s) in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimant-appellants to the Insurance company within a period of two weeks from the date of this order and needful shall be done by the Insurance Company after verification thereof within four weeks thereafter alongwith up-to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.

¶56

In view of the above discussion, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the present appeal stands allowed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶57

26.11.2025 ( ALKA SARIN ) jk JUDGE

¶58

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶59

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.11.27 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Rajender and Others v. Jagmal @ Jaggu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajender and Others v. Jagmal @ Jaggu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udai Ram Alias Udey Ram Vs Chanderbhan and Others

Kamruddin @ Kamrudin and Another Vs Jilsad and Others

Baljit Singh and Anr. Vs Mehar Singh and Ors.

Bishan Singh (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs Vs Rattan Singh (Since Deceased) Thru Lrs and Ors.

Senior Manager Federal Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs Tahil Singh

Bagha Singh Vs Asha Rani and Another