The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently stated that a homemaker’s contributions cannot be quantified while increasing the widow’s compensation [Dayawanti vs. Arjun and Others].
Justice Sanjay Vashishth remarked that a housewife has numerous responsibilities that comprise a wide variety of duties.
The commitment of housewives is indisputable, and their contributions to the intricate fabric of daily life must be recognised, the judge added.
“A housewife has a multitude of responsibilities that encompass a variety of duties. From managing domestic chores to cultivating relationships and preserving a harmonious living environment, their duties are nonstop and demanding. The commitment of a homemaker is indisputable, as she works nonstop around the clock. “The contribution of a housewife to the intricate fabric of daily life is immeasurable and merits profound recognition,” stated the Court.
Following the death of her husband in 2007, a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) had awarded the woman compensation. The woman was requesting an increase in that compensation.
In 2005, the woman requested 20 million in compensation. The tribunal determined the deceased’s age to be 49 years and eight months, his monthly income to be 3,500 yen, deducted one-third for his personal expenses, multiplied by thirteen, and awarded 5,000 as conjugal consortium and 10,000 as funeral expenses.
Accordingly, the MACT awarded the widow 3,790,000 in total compensation.
She petitioned the High Court on the grounds that the tribunal erred in determining the deceased’s monthly salary. She added that the MACT had failed to increase the income based on future prospects, had deducted excessive personal expenditures, and had failed to compensate for the loss of the estate.
The insurance company argued that there was no need to interfere with the MACT’s findings and opposed this appeal.
The court was of the opinion that the deceased truck driver’s income should have been based on the prevailing wages at the time of the disaster (£5,812.75 per month).
Relevantly, the court noted that the solitary claimant was a widow who had been thrust into a position of great responsibility following her husband’s death.
“This transition would have presented her with an array of difficult responsibilities, marking a profound and demanding phase of adaptation and fortitude,” the court added.
The court added that in addition to caring for herself, the widow was responsible for managing her residence.
In accordance with the parameters established by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sangtari Muleem v. Karnail Singh, the bench increased the total amount of compensation payable to 8,44,508.
As a result, the Court modified the tribunal’s award and ordered the company to pay 8,44,508 in compensation plus 7.5% annual interest from the date the claim petition was filed.
Attorney Bhisham K. Majoka represented the plaintiff.
Attorney RC Kapoor represented the insurance company in court.
