Assuming that the deceased was not employed, it cannot be disputed that she was a homemaker. Her direct and indirect monthly income, in no circumstances, could be less than the wages admissible to a daily wager in the State of Uttarakhand under the Minimum Wages Act. {Para 7}
8. It goes without saying that the role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family. The activities performed by a home-maker, if counted one by one, there will hardly be any doubt that the contribution of a home-maker is of a high order and invaluable. In fact, it is difficult to assess such a contribution in monetary terms.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.2512 OF 2024
ARVIND KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. Vs GIRISH PANDEY & ANR.
Dated: FEBRUARY 16, 2024.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant No.1 is the husband, and appellant Nos.2 and 3
are the daughter and son, respectively of the deceased Smt.Sushma
Pandey. She was admittedly around 50 years old on 26.06.2006 when
she was travelling with the respondents in their car. It seems that
the vehicle lost control, skidded off and fell into a ditch at
about 3.45 p.m., causing the death of Smt. Sushma Pandey.
3. The appellants filed a Claim Petition under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (for short, `the Tribunal’) seeking compensation of
Rs.16,85,000/-. The Tribunal dismissed the said petition stating
that the vehicle in question was not insured and, therefore, the
claim did not lie. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants
approached the High Court by way of an appeal. The High Court
allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal. The
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- only to the appellants as
compensation. The appellants went in appeal, but the High Court
dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 06.04.2017.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused the material placed on record.
5. As regard to the monthly income of the deceased, learned
counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that none of the
certificates are reliable.
6. We are constrained to observe that the impugned order
passed by the High Court is full of factual as well as legal
errors. The High Court overlooked the fact that the deceased was
about 50 years old and not 55 years old. Similarly, the High Court
has committed a patent error in observing that the appellants are
not dependent on the deceased. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 were students
at the relevant time, and were surely dependent on the parents
including their deceased mother. The High Court again misread the
facts while observing that the deceased was travelling in the bus,
while actually she was traveling in the car.
7. Assuming that the deceased was not employed, it cannot be
disputed that she was a homemaker. Her direct and indirect monthly income, in no circumstances, could be less than the wages admissible to a daily wager in the State of Uttarakhand under the Minimum Wages Act.
8. It goes without saying that the role of a homemaker is as
important as that of a family member whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family. The activities performed by a home-maker, if counted one by one, there will hardly be any doubt that the contribution of a home-maker is of a high order and invaluable. In fact, it is difficult to assess such a contribution in monetary terms.
9. Taking into consideration all the attending
circumstances, it appears to us that the monthly income of the
deceased, at the relevant time, could not be less than Rs.4,000/-
p.m. or so. However, instead of calculating the compensation under
different heads, and also keeping in mind the fact that the
appellants and the respondents are closely related, and the
delinquent vehicle was not insured, we deem it appropriate to allow
this appeal in part to the extent that the appellants are granted a
lump sum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs). Since
the respondents have already paid the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to
the appellants, the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- shall be paid
by them within six weeks, failing which they shall be liable to pay
interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
10. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications stand
disposed of.
.........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
..............…….........J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 16, 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment