While ruling on a very significant legal point and enhancing the compensation payable to a woman following her husband’s death, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Dayawanti vs Arjun and Ors in FAO-3236-2007 and cited in Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:107450 that was pronounced as recently as on August 17, 2023 has held in no uncertain terms that a homemaker’s contribution is no less than that of a skilled worker. It must be mentioned here that this brilliant judgment came in the wake of the ruling of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that assessed the homemaker’s income as that of an unskilled labourer. It also must be noted here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Vashisth of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made it indubitably clear in this noteworthy judgment that a homemaker shoulders myriad responsibilities that encompass a diverse range of tasks.
While saying clearly that the contribution of a homemaker to the intricate fabric of daily life is immeasurable and deserves profound acknowledgment, the Bench observed most commendably that, “In no way can it be equated to an unskilled labourer.” The Bench also held clearly that a homemaker’s contributions cannot be quantified. The Judge also added that, “The dedication of homemakers is undeniable and their contributions to the intricate fabric of daily life must be acknowledged. It also deserves mentioning that the Bench was dealing with an appeal that had been filed by the petitioner against the 2005 award that had been passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, on account of the death of her husband in a motor vehicular accident.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Vashisth sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner/claimant (hereinafter referred as ‘claimant’) in MACT Case No. 62 of 2005, dated 19.04.2005, for modification of award dated 28.02.2007, passed by Ld. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. Tribunal’) by way of seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, on account of death of deceased – Sarwan Kumar.”
As we see, the Bench then points out in para 2 of this robust judgment that, “There was only one claimant in the MACT case that is Smt. Daya alias Dayawanti, who is widow of the deceased – Sarwan Kumar. In the present appeal before this Court, she is seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Ld. Tribunal on account of death of her husband Sarwan Kumar in a motor vehicular accident.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on the facts of this leading case envisages in para 3 of this remarkable judgment that, “Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 10.01.2005, at 05:00 p.m., deceased left for Delhi in his truck bearing No. HR-38-BG-5027 from Punjab. Near brick kiln of village Sambli on Dhand to Karnal Road, at about 09:00 p.m., one canter bearing registration No. HR-64-0903 coming on the left side of the road dashed into the truck of the deceased. Sarwan Kumar died on the spot. It was contended that the said canter was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.”
As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in para 4 of this refreshing judgment that, “Claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 and Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of her husband in the motor vehicular accident. However, after going through the record, appreciating the evidences, examining the witnesses and hearing the arguments of both the sides, Ld. Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 49 years and 8 months, his monthly income as Rs.3,500/-, deducted 1/3rd on account of his personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 13, granted Rs.5,000/- as spousal consortium, Rs.10,000/- as funeral expenses and accordingly, awarded total compensation to the claimant to the tune of Rs.3,79,000/- payable by respondents severally and jointly with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its actual realization. Appellant/Petitioner/Claimant has filed the present petition, seeking enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the Ld. Tribunal.”
Truth be told, the Bench then states in para 5 of this commendable judgment that, “While addressing arguments, Counsel for the appellants submits that the Ld. Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly salary of the deceased – Sarwan Kumar; failed to enhance the income on account of future prospects; has deducted personal expenses on the higher side and failed to grant any compensation on account of loss of estate.”
Frankly speaking, the Bench postulates in para 7 of this elegant judgment that, “This Court is of the view that income of the deceased who was a truck driver should have been assessed in accordance with the DC rates prevalent at the time of the accident which were Rs. 5,812.75/- per month as on date of accident i.e. 10.01.2005.”
Most significantly, most commendably and most forthrightly, the Bench then minces just no words to expound in para 8 holding that, “Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant vehemently argues that in view of the law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 : Law Finder Doc ID #188882, there being only one dependent of the deceased that is widow of the deceased, a deduction of half (1/2) on account of personal expenses of the deceased should be made. This court has thoroughly examined the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned ‘Sarla Verma’ case (supra) and observes that there is no explicit indication regarding the deduction to be applied in instances where the deceased was married and has only one dependent. Thus, in such circumstances, it is the discretion of the court to apply the deduction according to the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case. In the case in hand, sole claimant is a widow. With the unfortunate demise of her husband, the widow has been thrusted into a position of considerable responsibility, as she now must not only ensure her own well-being but also shoulder the care and support of her family. This transition would have brought about an array of challenging responsibilities to her, signifying a profound and demanding phase of adaptation and resilience. A homemaker shoulders a myriad of responsibilities that encompass a diverse range of tasks. From managing household chores to nurturing relationships and maintaining a harmonious living environment, their role is ceaseless and demanding. Operating tirelessly around the clock, a homemaker’s dedication is undeniable. The contribution of a homemaker to the intricate fabric of daily life is immeasurable and deserves profound acknowledgment. Thus, being a homemaker, widow – Daya @ Dayawanti has to not only look after herself, but also manage her home too. If a deduction of ½ (half) is made to the income of the deceased, it will bring profound challenges in the life of the widow and will cause extreme hardship to her. Thus, in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that deduction for personal expenses in the present case should be 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and sole claimant – widow should be entitled to the remaining 2/3rd of the income of the deceased.”
For sake of brevity, the Bench then observes in para 9 that, “Rest of the parameters are assessed and calculated in accordance with the judgment of this Court titled as Sangtari Muleem v. Karnail Singh, (FAO No. 2538 of 2006, D/d. 07.07.2023) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2270482, which is in consonance with the settled proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 : Law Finder Doc Id #918174, and Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others, 2023 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 229 : Law Finder Doc Id #2081014.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 11 that, “I have gone through the judgments cited by counsel for the appellant (petitioner/claimant) and thus, I deem it appropriate to maintain the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 12 that, “Thus, keeping in view the aim of this beneficial legislation of providing relief to the victims or their families, the total compensation payable to the appellant (petitioner/claimant) is Rs.8,44,508/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment of compensation to the appellants (petitioner/claimant).”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 13 of this learned judgment that, “Needless to mention that out of the total payable compensation amount, already paid amount (if any) in compliance to the impugned award would be adjusted. Therefore, by partly modifying the award, appeal is allowed with the terms indicated here-above.”
In sum, we thus see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it emphatically clear that the homemakers are on par with those of skilled workers and their ceaseless and huge contribution definitely cannot be ever undermined by anyone on any ground. The Court has also most candidly conceded that the contribution of a homemaker to the intricate fabric of daily life is immeasurable and deserves profound acknowledgement. Very rightly so! It certainly merits no reiteration that all the courts in India must always acknowledge the immeasurable role played by a housewife as homemaker and not undermine it in any manner as it cannot be justified under any circumstances while deciding similar such cases or even in other cases also! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi
