The Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually criticized the Hisar Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for not including the victim’s income while calculating compensation based on the premise that her husband was also earning. The Court also observed that allocating Rs 2,000 per month for “loss of domestic services” based on the salary of a contracted employee did not recognize the personal and irreplaceable nature of her contribution to the family.

‘Shocking evaluation’

It is shocking to note that the court imposed Rs 2,000 per month for the loss to the family.

As services that the deceased would have provided as the deceased’s husband, she hired a male assistant with the same monthly salary. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Making clear that the court had undervalued the compensation by ignoring the financial contributions of the now-deceased worker, a public school teacher who died in a traffic accident more than two decades ago, Justice Sanjay Vashisth increased the relief granted to the family of 4.12 rupees. lakh to Rs 21.23 lakh.

Justice Vashisth stated that compensation calculations must take into account the contributions of both spouses within a household. The court stated: “Ignoring the deceased wife’s income solely because the husband also earns runs counter to the concept of dual income in modern households.”

The court observed that the Hisar court had not only ignored the actual monthly salary of Rs 10,738 earned by the woman, but had also denied future prospects and loss of wealth. Judge Vashisth stated that the approach was “fundamentally flawed”, stressing that both spouses often contribute financially in current family structures and that “the income of the deceased spouse, regardless of the income of the surviving spouse, must be considered when assessing loss of income for the purpose.” to calculate the compensation payable to the plaintiffs.

Apart from admonishing the court for allocating a mere Rs 2,000 per month for the loss of household services, the court stated that it had failed to capture the victim’s irreplaceable and multifaceted contributions to her family.

Justice Vashisth said, “It is shocking to note that the court assessed Rs 2,000 per month due to the loss to the family for the services that the deceased would have rendered when the deceased’s husband hired a male assistant at the same monthly salary. Such a comparison does not take into account the personal, multifaceted and irreplaceable nature of the deceased’s contribution to the family, while the deceased’s contribution extends beyond the mere monetary aspect.

Applying the guidelines of the Supreme Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited vs. 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 abandoning the case, Justice Vashisth referred to the purpose behind granting compensation in such cases: “The aim and purpose of beneficial legislation is to provide relief to the victims or their families.” The court also stipulated a three-month deadline for payment, failing which the interest rate would be raised to 9 percent per annum from the 7.5 percent currently granted.