Mishap victim’s income missed in assessing relief, Punjab and Haryana High Court raps tribunal

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually rapped Hisar Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for not including a victim’s income while calculating the compensation on the premise that her husband was also earning. The Bench also observed that assigning Rs 2,000 per month for the ‘loss of household services’ based on a hired servant's wage failed to recognise the personal and irreplaceable nature of her contribution to the family.

‘Assessment shocking’

It is shocking to notice that the tribunal assessed Rs 2,000 per month on account of loss to the family

by way of services which the deceased would have rendered as deceased’s husband hired a male attendant at same monthly wage. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Making it clear that the tribunal had undervalued compensation by disregarding the financial contributions of the now-deceased working woman, a government schoolteacher who died in a road accident more than two decades ago, Justice Sanjay Vashisth enhanced the relief awarded to the family from Rs 4.12 lakh to Rs 21.23 lakh.

Justice Vashisth asserted that calculations of compensation must account for the contributions of both spouses within a household. The court asserted: "Ignoring the deceased wife’s income solely because the husband is also earning is against the concept of dual incomes in modern households."

The court observed that the Hisar tribunal had not only disregarded the actual monthly salary of Rs  10,738 earned by woman but also denied future prospects and loss of estate. Justice Vashisth asserted that the approach was ‘fundamentally flawed’, underscoring that both spouses typically contribute financially in today’s family structures and ‘income of the deceased spouse, irrespective of the surviving spouse's earnings, should be considered while assessing the loss of income for the purpose of calculating the compensation payable to the claimants’.

Further admonishing the tribunal for assigning a mere Rs 2,000 per month for the loss of household services, the court asserted it failed to capture the irreplaceable and multifaceted contributions of the victim to her family.

Justice Vashisth asserted: “It is shocking to notice that the tribunal assessed Rs 2,000 per month on account of loss to the family by way of services which the deceased would have rendered as deceased's husband hired a male attendant at same monthly wage. Such comparison fails to consider the personal, multifaceted and irreplaceable nature of the deceased's contribution to the family, whereas deceased's contribution extends beyond mere monetary aspect.

Applying Supreme Court guidelines in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi”, the court recalculated the compensation. Among other things, it set the monthly income base at Rs 16,107, adding 50 per cent for future prospects.

Before parting with the case, Justice Vashisth referred to the purpose behind the award of compensation in such cases: "The aims and object of the beneficial legislation is of providing relief to the victims or their families." The court further stipulated a three-month deadline for payment, failing which the interest rate would be raised to 9 per cent annually from 7.5 per cent awarded now.