Housewife’s Job Requires More Contribution Than A Normal Job, Income Cannot Be Calculated In Monthly Wages: Calcutta HC Enhances Compensation In Motor Accident Case

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta thus observed, “…it is unexpected from a housewife to prove her actual income by producing document or salary certificate…A housewife’s job requires more contribution than a normal job or service of earning person. She maintains her husband, children, parents and other family members for entire day by way of caring them, cleaning, cooking food and many others as a result her income cannot be equated with earnings of a normal person. Her income cannot be calculated in the form of monthly salary or wages”.

However, after perusing the disability certificate issued by the medical Board for 10 years, the Court was of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly assessed the period counted for loss of income and future income.

Advocate Subhankar Mandal appeared for the appellant and Advocate S. Ganguli appeared for the Insurance Company.

In the pertinent matter it was averred that the appellant (a housewife), 37 years old, met with an accident which was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle causing severe injuries. Resultantly, claiming her income to be Rs. 4000/- per month on the date of accident she sought enhancement of compensation as after the accident she suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 50% and lost her future earning capacity. Compensation was also sought for the mental pain, agony that she shall suffer throughout her life due to disability.

Pursuant to which the Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs. 2, 09,746/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of realization. The Court had taken the notion income of the appellant to be Rs. 3000 and had granted a compensation of Rs. 5000 towards pain and suffering.

Therefore, the appellant filed an appeal on being dissatisfied with the findings of the Tribunal with regard to less compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering of Rs. 5000/- and that the loss of income and future income was counted for only 10 years and 10 months though the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board is to that extent of 50%.

It was further vehemently argued that the Tribunal erred in accepting the income of victim as Rs. 3000/- per month as notional income without any justification when she had specifically claimed it to be Rs 4000/-.

Noting the above contention, the bench thus observed, “In this case the claimant herself claims before the learned Tribunal with a clean hand showing her income as Rs. 4000/- per month. Therefore, it cannot be discarded only on the contention that she failed to produce any document in support of her claim. Her oral evidence is sufficient to accept her contention that her income was Rs.4, 000/= per month. There is no dispute that she was not a house wife at the time of accident. Thus, this Court can safely accept her income as Rs. 4,000/- per month”.

“Appellant being a housewife must suffer her pain, agony and suffering. Therefore, compensation amount must be more than Rs. 5000/-. The Ld. Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation amount under the head of mental pain, agony and suffering because she had been extensively treated in several hospitals. Furthermore, there is no straight jacket formula to consider amount under heading pain and suffering. Accordingly, this court assessed her pain and suffering as Rs. 50,000/- considering the nature of injuries, life span and disability certificate issued by the Medical Board”, the bench further noted.

Accordingly, the bench modified the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 20, 2020.

Cause Title: Pratima Sahoo v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.