Not ‘just’ a homemaker: Why Punjab and Haryana High Court doubled compensation to family to over Rs 1 crore

Findings

• A further review of the award reveals that the victim was described as a homemaker. The learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the claimant (Since deceased) on the lower side and contrary to the judgments of the apex court.
• In Jasbir Singh’s case, the notional income of a housewife was taken as Rs 9000; however, in the present case, the accident occurred in 2014. In view of sustained inflation, the rising cost of living, and jurisprudential acknowledgment of the far-reaching economic contribution of homemakers, it is both just and reasonable to reassess the notional income of the victim.
• The work of a housewife transcends caretaking, embracing preparation of meals for the entire family; procurement of groceries and household supplies; cleaning and maintenance of the house and surroundings; financial planning and budget management; child care and education; tending to elderly dependents; coordinating repairs and home-based healthcare, etc.
• These services, if procured in the open market, would command substantial remuneration, underscoring the integral role played by a homemaker in family stability.
• In light of the above legal position and having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court finds it appropriate to assess the notional income of the victim at Rs 15,000 per month.
• A further perusal of the record shows that the tribunal has awarded the compensation on the lower side to the victim under the heads of pain and suffering, which is required to be enhanced.
• It is trite that permanent disability suffered by an individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical abilities, but there are multiple non-quantifiable implications for the victim.
  Further, the very fact that a healthy person turns into an invalid being deprived of normal companionship and incapable of leading a productive life makes one suffer loss of dignity.
• The victim suffered grievous injuries on her person, including serious head injuries with multiple hemorrhagic contusions.
• Further, she was operated on for the same and was kept on a ventilator till she succumbed to her injuries in November 2017.
• It is evident from the record that the victim was in a total vegetative state after the accident in question till her death. This fairly concludes the fact that the victim had suffered an immense amount of pain and agony due to the accident in question.

Decision

• Grants compensation of Rs 15 lakh under the heads of pain and suffering.
• In view of the considering age and disability suffered by the victim, the family is entitled to attendant charges to the tune of Rs 8 lakh.
• A further perusal of the award reveals that the tribunal has erred in not adding any amount of prospects to the income of the victim, therefore, as per settled law, 40 per cent is to be added as prospects.
• In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed, and the award of 2016 is modified to 58.22 lakh to 1.18 crore.

Background

• The case arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 8, 2014, which left a homemaker with severe head injuries and multiple hemorrhagic contusions.
• Following the accident, she remained in a “total vegetative state”, dependent on a ventilator and pipe feeding, until she succumbed to her injuries on November 21, 2017.
• In December 2016, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granted Rs 58.22 lakh to the family.
  Subsequently, the family filed a plea against the tribunal order for the enhancement of compensation.