Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Vinay Jain & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
`
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Reserved on : 22 May 2026
st
Pronounced on : 01 July 2026
nd
Uploaded on : 02 July 2026
+ MAC.APP. 509/2024 & & CM APPL. 56043/2024
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Kanwar Kochar, Advocate
versus
VINAY JAIN & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa and Mr.
Honey Jain, Advocates for
Respondent No.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
%
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company
th
assailing the Award dated 9 July 2024 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, South East District, Saket Courts [‘ MACT/Tribunal ’]
in MACT No.372/2022 , whereby compensation of Rs.57,64,476/- along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing claim
petition till realisation [“ impugned award ’], was awarded to the
claimant, Mr. Vinay Jain [ respondent no.1 herein ].
2. The essential contention raised by Mr. Kanwar Kochar , counsel
for appellant/Insurance Company, is that husband of the
deceased/claimant [ respondent no.1 ] was an ‘ earning member ’ of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 1 of 37
`
family, and was not financially dependent upon his wife and, therefore,
would not be entitled to compensation under the head of “ loss of
dependency ”.
3. The issue for consideration before this Court is whether
“ dependency of husband ”, in the context of contribution made by a wife ,
in the form of services, income, or contribution to the household, ought
to be taken into account while calculating the total compensation.
th
4. The accident took place on 26 January 2022 when Ms. Nidhi Jain
[hereinafter ‘ deceased ’] was travelling along with her husband , Mr.
Vinay Jain /claimant [ respondent no.1 ], their daughter , her mother-in-law
and niece in a car which was being driven by claimant/respondent no.1.
At about 10:00 - 10:30 p.m., when they were on National Highway-58
[“ NH - 58 ”] , a truck bearing registration number UP-15-AT-0876
[“ offending vehicle ”], allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent
manner at high speed, suddenly came onto the highway and hit their car.
Due to the impact, deceased along with her daughter , mother-in-law and
niece , passed away, while her husband [ claimant/respondent no.1 ]
survived.
5. Separate claim petitions were filed with respect to the deaths of
th
the daughter and niece . FIR No.33/2022 dated 27 January 2022, under
Sections 279/338/304-A/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [‘ IPC ’] was
registered at Police Station Partapur ; investigation ensued and a charge-
sheet was filed.
Impugned Award and Appeal
6. The issue of ‘ causation ’ and ‘ negligence ’ was decided in favour of
claimant/respondent no.1 and liability was fastened upon the
appellant/Insurance Company, being insurer of the offending vehicle.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 2 of 37
`
7. What is disputed before this Court is the ‘ quantum ’ of
compensation. Deceased was 33 years of age on date of the accident,
and, therefore, multiplier was taken as ‘ 16 ’. As regards the income of
deceased, it was noticed that deceased was a postgraduate (M. Phil ) and
was working as a ‘ Salaried Director ’ with Grepix Infotech Pvt. Ltd . at
time of the accident.
8. It was contented by claimant/respondent no.1 that her last drawn
salary was Rs. 65,000/- per month, and that she was contributing towards
family expenses. In this regard, claimant/respondent no.1 relied upon the
Income Tax Returns [‘ ITRs ’] of the deceased, for the Financial Years
[‘ FY ’ ] 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2020, exhibited as Exhibit
PW1/8 , Exhibit PW1/9 and Exhibit PW1/10 respectively.
9. Since ITR for the FY 2021-2022 had been filed after the accident,
the MACT chose to rely upon the ITR filed for FY 2020-2021 and
accordingly, assessed the total annual income of deceased as
Rs.5,06,230/- .
10. Future prospects were added at 40% on the basis of her
employment. Deduction towards personal and living expenses was taken
as one-half , considering that she was contributing towards the family
expenses along with her husband . Consequently, loss of dependency was
calculated at Rs.56,69,776/-.
11. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads, viz . loss of consortium ,
loss of estate , funeral expenses , was awarded in terms of the principles
enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 at Rs. 48,400/- ,
Rs.18,150/- and Rs.18,150/- respectively . The total compensation
awarded was Rs.57,54,476/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 3 of 37
`
annum, out of which the MACT directed release of Rs.10,54,476/- , while
the balance amount of Rs.47,00,000/- was directed to be kept in Fixed
Deposit Receipts [‘ FDRs ’].
12. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by appellant/Insurance Company.
th
Notice was issued by this Court on 24 September 2024, and
appellant/Insurance Company was directed to deposit the entire
compensation amount along with interest from date of institution of the
claim before the Registrar General of this Court. No directions for
release were passed; however, liberty was granted to respondents to file
an application seeking release of the amount.
th
13. On 28 October 2024, pursuant to CM APPL. 63642/2024
seeking release of said amount, this Court directed release of 30% of the
compensation amount in favour of claimant/respondent no.1, on the
same terms and conditions as stipulated in the impugned award.
Submissions on behalf of appellant/Insurance Company
14. Mr. Kanwar Kochar , counsel for appellant/Insurance Company,
relied upon the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd V. Ashok
Kumar Kochhar & Ors . 2024:DHC:4807 and Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd v. Pawan Kumar Sharma & Ors. 2024:DHC:2973, both rendered by
a Single Judge of this Court.
15. In Pawan Kumar Sharma ( supra) , wife and child of the claimant
died in a motor accident, in respect of which compensation was sought.
The wife was working as an ‘ Executive ’ in a private company and was
drawing a salary of Rs.2,42,174/- per annum. The Tribunal assessed the
monthly income at Rs.14,133/- per month and computed loss of
dependency after adding 50% towards future prospects . Insurance
Company preferred an appeal on the ground that the husband was not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 4 of 37
`
dependent upon his wife and, therefore, sought modification of
compensation awarded. The Single Judge relied upon the decision of this
Court in Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar , 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4686
and of the Karnataka High Court in A. Manavalagan v. A.
Krishnamurthy , 2004 SCC OnLine Karnataka 222. Consequently, the
compensation was re-computed, and reduced to about 50% of the
compensation awarded by the MACT, on the basis of Keith Rowe
(supra) , wherein a formulaic assessment was laid down.
16. The Single Judge followed his earlier decision in Pawan Kumar
Sharma ( supra) in Ashok Kumar Kochhar ( supra ), which also pertained
to an accident wherein the wife of the claimant died. The deceased wife
was working as an ‘ Accountant ’ with a State-owned organization and
was drawing a salary of Rs. 56,975/- per month. The Tribunal granted
compensation by applying the settled principles governing the
calculation of compensation, and accordingly, awarded compensation
under the head of loss of dependency . Insurance company challenged the
same, contending that the husband was not a ‘ dependent ’ and, therefore,
was not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency in
terms of the decision in Keith Rowe (supra) .
17. Yet again, the Single Judge relied upon Keith Rowe (supra) and
A. Manavalagan ( supra ), and calculated the loss of estate as one-third of
annual income multiplied by a suitable multiplier. Therefore, the
compensation was reduced.
Submissions on behalf of the Claimant/respondent no.1
18. Mr. Rajat Wadhwa , counsel for claimant/respondent no.1,
submitted that factum of the accident was not in dispute; driver of the
offending vehicle was charge-sheeted. He further submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 5 of 37
`
MACT had awarded compensation after taking into account the loss of
dependency .
19. Countering the submissions made by counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company, he submitted that, firstly ,
appellant/Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to establish that
the surviving husband was not financially dependent upon his wife ;
secondly , it was not disputed that deceased was gainfully employed as a
‘ Salaried Director ’ and was drawing a substantial income; thirdly ,
reliance placed upon Keith Rowe (supra) was misplaced in view of the
subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Malakappa and Others v.
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Anr. , 2025
SCC Online SC 979, wherein the Supreme Court held that where the
employment or income of husband had not been proved, the Court could
not presume that the husband was not dependent upon deceased wife ,
and, at the very least, ‘ partial dependency ’ cannot be ruled out.
20. Mr. Rajat Wadhwa , counsel for claimant/respondent no.1, further
contended that claimant/respondent no.1 had specifically pleaded in the
claim petition that he continued to be dependent upon deceased, which
was further substantiated by evidence on record, including his evidence
by way of affidavit. For ease of reference, same is extracted as under:
“ 5. That after the death of the wife of petitioner/deponent,
the deponent morally and mentally became down and had
came in depression. The petitioner is also burdened with
home loans and other liabilities such as office rent etc. The
income of the wife of the petitioner/deponent was great
contribution in loans and rent and hence the
petitioner/deponent is dependent on the income of his wife
deceased Nidhi Jain. ”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 6 of 37
`
21. Furthermore, reliance was placed upon Arun Kumar Agarwal v.
National Insurance Company Ltd. , (2010) 9 SCC 218, wherein the
Supreme Court held that, in cases of death of a wife , her husband and
children were entitled to compensation, not only for her lost earnings,
but also for the pecuniary value of her domestic and familial services,
which has to be assessed on some pecuniary basis. Reliance was also
placed upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in United
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shubham Kumar Jatav , 2025:MPHC-JBP:47597,
wherein it was held by a Single Judge of that Court that husbands were
generally dependent on their wives , either financially or through unpaid
domestic labour, and that the work of a ‘ homemake r’ has monetary
value, even if it is not salaried.
Analysis
22. Before appreciating and assessing the various decisions cited by
respective counsels, certain facts which may have a bearing on the issue
of loss of dependency , need to be stated.
23. The claim petition states that the deceased [ Ms. Nidhi Jain ] was 34
years of age, was a postgraduate (M. Phil) , and was working as a
‘ Salaried Director ’ with Grepix Infotech Pvt. Ltd. . The claim petition
further states that her last drawn gross salary was Rs. 65,000/- per month
and that she was supporting her husband in making payments and
bearing additional expenses. It is further stated that claimant/respondent
no.1 fell into a “ state of depression ” following the death of his wife ,
while also being burdened with liabilities such as home loans and office
rent. Income of the deceased constituted a substantial contribution
towards payment of said loans and rent and, on this basis, dependency of
claimant/respondent no.1 upon the deceased was asserted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 7 of 37
`
24. In response thereto, appellant/Insurance Company filed its written
statement stating that claimant/respondent no.1 had failed to enclose any
documentary proof pertaining to ‘ age ’, ‘ income ’, ‘ educational
qualifications ’ or ‘ employment ’ of the deceased. However, there was
neither any denial of nor any challenge to the issue of ‘ dependency of
husband ’.
25. In context of the aforesaid, testimony of PW-1
[ claimant/respondent no.1 ] needs to be examined, which reiterates
assertions made in the claim petition, as noted above. During the cross-
examination of PW-1 , all relevant documents, including bank statements
of the company managed by the husband [claimant/respondent no.1] of
the deceased, namely Grepix Infotech Pvt. Ltd. , for the relevant period,
th
were brought on record. Further, during cross-examination dated 16
February 2023, claimant/respondent no.1 stated that he had taken a “ joint
home loan ” with his wife from the Industrial Development Bank of India
[ IDBI Bank ] in the year 2019-2020. A perusal of records pertaining to
the cross-examination reveals that counsel for appellant/Insurance
Company initially did not cross-examine PW-1 [ claimant/respondent
no.1 ] on the issue of dependency ; however, as recorded in proceedings
st
before the Local Commissioner dated 1 April 2023, counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company subsequently submitted that they wished
to lead evidence. Resultantly, it was contended by counsel for
claimant/respondent no.1 that not only had the appellant/Insurance
Company failed to lead evidence to establish that claimant/respondent
no.1 was not dependent upon deceased, but the categorical assertions
made by PW-1 [ claimant/respondent no.1 ] in this regard also remained
unrebutted, as they were not controverted by appellant/Insurance
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 8 of 37
`
Company during cross-examination. Therefore, the issue of ‘ dependency
of husband ’ has only been raised by appellant/Insurance Company in the
present appeal, which cannot be sustained.
26. Yet another issue which requires mentioning is that Section
166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [‘ MV Act ’], permits an
application for compensation to be preferred by ‘ all or any of the legal
representatives ’ of the deceased, where death has resulted from an
accident. On said basis, it has been claimed that claimant/respondent
no.1 is a ‘ Class-I ’ legal heir of the deceased in terms of Section 15(1)(a)
of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, therefore, there exists no
statutory bar to his claiming compensation.
27. To this effect, none of the judgments, relied upon by
appellant/Insurance Company, hold that there exists a statutory bar upon
husband of deceased from claiming compensation. Therefore, there is no
occasion for this Court to examine the said contention, considering that
the legal position in this regard is not disputed. Even otherwise, the legal
right of a husband to claim compensation in respect of death of his
spouse due an accident cannot be denied in any manner. Accordingly,
the only issue which remains is that of the ‘ quantum of compensation ’
and ‘ loss of dependency of husband ’.
28. The genesis of the argument that an earning husband cannot seek
compensation under the head of loss of dependency upon the death of his
wife appears to arise from the misconception that, in most societal
setups, the husband is the earning member of the family and, the wife ,
largely being a non-earning member, disentitles the husband from grant
of compensation under the head of ‘ loss of dependency ’ in the event of
wife ’ s demise.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 9 of 37
`
29. Mr. Rajat Wadhwa , counsel for claimant/respondent no.1, drew
attention to an observation made by the Single Judge of this Court in
Ashok Kumar Kochhar ( supra ) which exemplifies this presumption and
is extracted as under:
“….In a contemporary Indian society, which is by and
large a patriarchal set up, while the death of the wife
would definitely entail pain and misery to the surviving
husband, the element of financial dependency has to be
discounted and the loss would be in the nature of loss
to estate.”
30. Mr. Rajat Wadhwa , counsel for claimant/respondent no.1,
contended that the aforesaid reflects the underlying theme which formed
the basis for decisions in Ashok Kumar Kochhar ( supra ) and Pawan
Kumar Sharma ( supra) , both incidentally rendered by the same Judge.
31. Nevertheless, without commenting upon the said observation, this
Court is of the view that the issue of compensation resulting from an
accident cannot be seen through a prism of whether society is a
patriarchal setup, or otherwise. Such considerations ought to be
anathema to the application of legal principles. The legal principle which
imbues the issue of compensation in a motor accident claim is rooted in
the law of torts, being a claim for damages/compensation arising out of a
negligent act resulting in death of a person, in respect of which a
claimant approaches either the Claims Tribunal or the Court. A claim for
damages/compensation does not depend upon whether it is made by a
husband on account of the death of his wife or vice - versa . It would be
extremely difficult and inappropriate for the Court to peer into private
arrangements amongst family members, including the manner in which
their household expenses are met, lifestyles sustained, or savings made
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 10 of 37
`
for future investments or contingencies. More often than not, Tribunals
and Courts rely upon anecdotal and insubstantial statements made in the
testimonies of legal representatives, which frequently remain unrebutted.
Furthermore, no reliable or cogent evidence is ordinarily led by the
Insurance Companies, and the driver or owner of the insured offending
vehicle is usually absent from proceedings.
32. Material placed before Courts having evidentiary value includes
salary statements or salary slips, income certificates, Income Tax
Returns [ ITRs ], testimonies of employers and employees, bank
statements and other financial documents, all of which ordinarily stand
unrebutted. If deceased in a motor accident was an ‘ earning member ’ of
the family, whether husband or wife , it is evident that such income
constituted a contribution to the family corpus. For the Tribunal or the
Court to deny the same on an assumption that such contribution was
unnecessary merely because another member of the family was also
earning would amount to an erroneous assessment. Such an assessment
would, in fact, inject unnecessary subjectivity, contrary to the guideposts
laid down by the Supreme Court standardising large tracts of
compensation, inter alia , in Sarla Verma (s upra ) and Pranay Sethi
(s upra ).
33. On the other hand, if the deceased was ‘ not an earning member ’,
then other aspects deliberated upon by the Courts, get triggered. Any
non-earning member forming part of the ‘ head unit ’ of the family,
whether husband or wife , would ordinarily contribute through gratuitous
services rendered for the upkeep of the family. Yet again, such a non-
earning member , could either be a ‘ non-earning husband ’ or a ‘ non-
earning wife ’. It is perhaps time that the Courts take note of evolving
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 11 of 37
`
societal structures and changing realities, which are no longer anchored
in the traditional past. For this purpose, certain decisions of the Supreme
Court and international jurisprudence may be relevant.
Decision in Arun Kumar Agarwal v. National Insurance Company
Ltd. (2010) 9 SCC 218
34. In Arun Kumar Agrawal ( supra ), the Supreme Court undertook
an extensive assessment regarding the award of compensation in respect
of death of a ‘ non-earning member ’ of the family (in that case, the wife ).
Wife of the appellant died in a road accident. Following her death,
appellant filed a claim for compensation stating that he had become
‘ miserable ’ and, was therefore, unable to look after his minor child or
manage the domestic affairs of the family. Dependency was disputed; the
Tribunal reduced the compensation; the High Court dismissed the appeal
filed by claimants. Subsequently, the argument advanced before the
Supreme Court was that refusal to recognize the immense importance of
invaluable services rendered by a housewife / mother to the family
throughout her life constituted an error.
35. The Supreme Court proceeded to consider the question formulated
by it, which was as follows: “ What should be the criteria for
determination of compensation, payable to the dependents of a woman,
who dies in a road accident and who does not have a regular source of
income? ”
36. The discussion by the Supreme Court in this regard begins from
paragraph 22 of the judgement, wherein certain English decisions were
considered. The Court noted that the trend in English law had been that,
in cases involving death of a wife , compensation was granted having
regard to pecuniary aspects, inter alia , loss to the family of the wife's
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 12 of 37
`
housekeeping services, loss suffered by children due to deprivation of
personal attention by their mother , and the loss arising from absence of a
wife's personal care and attention, etc. In paragraph 26 , the Court further
noted that, in India, Courts have recognized that the contribution made
by a wife to the household is invaluable and cannot be assessed in
monetary terms. However, since such contributions are non-pecuniary in
nature, some pecuniary estimate has to be made for the services
rendered. Without paraphrasing the relevant paragraphs, the said
paragraphs from the Supreme Court's decision are reproduced as under:
“ 26. In India the courts have recognised that the
contribution made by the wife to the house is
invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money.
The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with true
love and affection to the children and her husband and
managing the household affairs cannot be equated with
the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not
work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of
the family throughout the day and night unless she is
employed and is required to attend the employer's work
for particular hours. She takes care of all the
requirements of the husband and children including
cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches
small children and provides invaluable guidance to
them for their future life. A housekeeper or
maidservant can do the household work, such as
cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the
house clean, etc., but she can never be a substitute for
a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her
husband and children.
27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of
the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family
i.e. the husband and children. However, for the
purpose of award of compensation to the dependants,
some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 13 of 37
`
of the housewife/mother. In that context, the term
“services” is required to be given a broad meaning
and must be construed by taking into account the loss
of personal care and attention given by the deceased to
her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife.
They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of
the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the
deceased. The amount payable to the dependants
cannot be diminished on the ground that some close
relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render
some of the services to the family which the deceased
was giving earlier.
xxxx
35. In our view, it is highly unfair, unjust and
inappropriate to compute the compensation payable to
the dependants of a deceased wife/mother, who does
not have a regular income, by comparing her services
with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an
employee, who works for a fixed period. The gratuitous
services rendered by the wife/mother to the husband
and children cannot be equated with the services of an
employee and no evidence or data can possibly be
produced for estimating the value of such services. It is
virtually impossible to measure in terms of money the
loss of personal care and attention suffered by the
husband and children on the demise of the housewife.
In its wisdom, the legislature had, as early as in 1994,
fixed the notional income of a non-earning person at
Rs. 15,000 per annum and in case of a spouse, 1/3rd
income of the earning/surviving spouse for the purpose
of computing the compensation. ”
(emphasis added)
37. After assessing the matter on facts, the Supreme Court held as
under:
“ 37. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that
while in his deposition, Appellant 1 had categorically
stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000 per
annum by paintings and handicrafts, the respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 14 of 37
`
did not lead any evidence to controvert the same.
Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal and the High Court
altogether ignored the income of the deceased. The
Tribunal did advert to the Second Schedule of the Act
and observed that the income of the deceased could be
assessed at Rs.5,000 per month (Rs. 60,000 per
annum) because the income of her spouse was Rs.
15,416 per month and then held that after making
deduction, the total loss of dependency could be Rs. 6
lakhs. However, without any tangible reason, the
Tribunal decided to reduce the amount of
compensation by observing that the deceased was
actually a non-earning member and the amount of
compensation would be too much. The High Court
went a step further and dismissed the appeal by
erroneously presuming that neither of the claimants
was dependent upon the deceased and the services
rendered by her could be estimated as Rs. 1250 per
month.
38. In our view, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal
for reducing the amount of compensation are wholly
untenable and the approach adopted by the High Court
in dealing with the issue of payment of compensation to
the appellants was ex facie erroneous and unjustified .”
(emphasis added)
38. The opinion rendered by Justice A. K. Ganguly , in Arun Kumar
Agrawal ( supra ), provides a useful academic assessment of the gender
bias that exists in assessment of compensation and is contained in
paragraphs 41 to 65 of the said judgement.
39. The opinion authored by Justice A. K. Ganguly was prefaced by
an important observation, which is extracted as under:
“ 41. Despite the clear constitutional mandate to
eschew discrimination on grounds of sex in Article
15(1) of the Constitution, in its implementation there is
a distinct gender bias against women and various
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 15 of 37
`
social welfare legislations and also in judicial
pronouncements .”
(emphasis added)
40. In fact, Justice A. K. Ganguly traverses the aspect of how the
census is also viewed with the same bias and, after some discussion,
notes as under:
“ 50. Women are generally engaged in homemaking,
bringing up children and also in production of goods
and services which are not sold in the market but are
consumed at the household level. Thus, the work of
women mostly goes unrecognised and they are never
valued. Therefore, in the categorisation by the census
what is ignored is the well-known fact that women
make significant contribution at various levels
including agricultural production by sowing,
harvesting, transplanting and also tending cattle and
by cooking and delivering the food to those persons
who are on the field during the agriculture season.
51. Though census operations do not call for
consideration in this case but reference to the same has
been made to show the strong bias shown against
women and their work. We hope and trust that in the
ongoing census operations this will be corrected .”
(emphasis added)
41. The Court, in the aforesaid decision, also notes that the restriction
of consideration of income of a ‘ non-earning spouse ’ to not more than
one-third of the income of ‘ earning spouse ’, as applied in some
judgments, is not based on any rational basis. Relevant paragraphs in
this regard are reproduced as under:
“ 42. In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter “the
said Act”), Section 163-A provides for special
provision for payment of compensation on structured
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 16 of 37
`
formula basis. The said section has been quoted in the
earlier part of the judgment by Brother Singhvi, J.
Therefore, I refrain from quoting the same. The Second
Schedule which is referred to in the said section has
several clauses. Clause 6 of the said Schedule provides
for notional income of those who had no income prior
to accident. Clause 6 has been divided into two classes
of persons, (a) non-earning persons, and (b) spouse.
43. Insofar as the spouse is concerned, the income of
the injured in fatal and non-fatal accident has been
categorised as 1/3rd of the income of the earning and
surviving spouse. It is, therefore, assumed if the spouse
who does not earn, which is normally the woman in the
house and the homemaker, such a person cannot have
an income more than 1/3rd of the income of the person
who is earning. This categorisation has been made
without properly appreciating the value of the services
rendered by the homemaker. To value the income of the
homemaker as one-third of the income of the earning
spouse is not based on any apparently rational basis. ”
(emphasis added)
42. The decision in Arun Kumar Agarwal ( supra ) has been notably
followed in subsequent decisions, as under:
(i) Jitender Khimshankar Trivedi v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar
(2015) 4 SCC 237, the issue concerned the death of a lady
in an accident, the claim being preferred by the husband and
husband’s sisters, daughter and father-in-law . The Tribunal
awarded compensation, and the High Court enhanced the
same. This was challenged on account of inadequate
assessment of income of deceased, who was a homemaker
and was ‘ self-employed ’ doing embroidery work. The Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 17 of 37
`
held that even if her self-employment had not been proved,
the fact remained that she was a ‘ housewife ’ and a
‘ homemaker ’, and that the Courts have recognized
contribution made by the wife to the house as invaluable.
The secision in Arun Kumar Agarwal ( supra ) was
followed, recognizing the services of the ‘ homemaker ’.
(ii) In Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd.
(2020) S7 SCC 256, where the matter concerned claim for
compensation with respect of the death of a ‘ housewife ’.
The Supreme Court held, relying upon Lata Wadhwa v.
State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197, that considering the
multifarious services rendered by ‘ housewives ’, even on a
modest estimation, the income of a ‘ housewife ’ in the age
group of 34-59 years, who is active, should be assessed at
Rs.36,000/- per annum, relying upon Arun Kumar Agarwal
( supra ).
(iii) In Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 2 SCC 166,
yet again, the claim was filed by the daughters and parents
of the deceased. The Supreme Court considered the decision
in Lata Wadhwa ( supra ), wherein compensation was
granted for accident cases of ‘ housewives ’ on the basis of
services rendered by them. The decision relied upon Arun
Kumar Agarwal ( supra ), in particular the concurring
opinion of Justice N.V. Ramana .
(iv) In Sunita v. Vinod Singh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 586,
relying upon Rajendra Singh ( supra ) and Arun Kumar
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 18 of 37
`
Agarwal ( supra ), the Supreme Court enhanced the notional
income of the deceased ‘ housewife ’.
Decision in Malakappa and Others v. IFFCO Tokio General
Insurance Company Limited and Anr. , 2025 SCC Online SC 979
43. More recently, in Malakappa ( supra ), the Supreme Court dealt
with a matter involving death of a wife , who was working as a ‘ coolie ’.
The Tribunal assessed her income at Rs.7,000/- and deducted one-third
of said income towards personal expenses on the basis that the husband
was not dependent on the deceased. To the said one-third of income,
50% was added for future prospects , and a multiplier of 16 was applied
for 35-year-old deceased. The Insurance Company preferred an appeal
before the High Court, which enhanced the benchmark income to Rs.
8,000/- .
44. The Supreme Court noted that, since no employment of the
husband was specified, it could not be assumed that he would not have
been at least ‘ partially dependent ’ upon the deceased, and that the family
was to be treated as a ‘ unit of four’ . Accordingly, the deduction towards
personal expenses was reduced to one-fourth .
45. A similar issue pertaining to the notional income of a
‘ homemaker ’ was considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Shubham Kumar Jatav ( supra ), wherein it was noted that, on several
occasions, the Supreme Court has held that services rendered by a
‘ homemaker ’ carry monetary value, even if they are not salaried.
46. This leads us to examine the view previously taken by Single
Judge of this Court in Keith Rowe (supra) , which held the field for some
time, and has been relied upon.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 19 of 37
`
Decision in Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4686
47. In Keith Rowe (supra), a decision delivered by a Single Judge of
th
this Court on 15 January 2010, prior to the Supreme Court's decision in
Arun Kumar Agarwal ( supra ), the Court dealt with a case involving the
death of Parminder Kaur Rowe , in an accident which occurred in 2001.
She was was 31 years of age at the time of accident and was survived by
her husband , who was 38 years of age and who, thereafter, filed the
claim petition in this regard. Deceased was working as an ‘ Executive
Assistant ’ in a private company with a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- .
The appellant sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, which had been quantified at Rs.4,93,000/- . The Tribunal,
treating the appellant as not being ‘ dependent ’ upon deceased, assessed
the loss of estate as one-fourth of the income of the deceased and applied
a multiplier of 12 . The appellant, however, contended that compensation
under regular head of ‘ loss of dependency ’ ought to have been granted,
applying the principles enunciated in Sarla Verma ( supra ).
48. The Court relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in
A. Manavalagan ( supra ). Relevant paragraphs of A. Manavalagan
( supra ), upon which reliance was placed by the Court, note that there
were ‘ two categories ’ of damages in cases involving the death of a
person: first , pecuniary loss sustained by family members dependent
upon the deceased as a result of such death; and second , loss caused to
the estate as a result of the death of the deceased. In the first category ,
action is brought by the legal representatives as trustees for the
dependants claiming entitlement to compensation. In the second
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 20 of 37
`
category , action is brought by the legal representatives on behalf of the
estate of the deceased, and the compensation recovered forms part of the
assets of the estate. A distinction was thereafter drawn between ‘ loss of
dependency ’ and ‘ loss of estate’ . Where the claim was for dependency ,
the basis for the award of compensation was ‘ loss of dependency ’, which
refers to the contribution made by the deceased to such claimants.
Conversely, where the claim was brought by legal representatives of the
deceased who were not dependants, compensation was assessed as ‘l oss
to the estate ’, that is, loss of savings of the deceased. The method for
determination of ‘ loss of estate ’ was broadly similar to that of ‘ loss of
dependency ’, which includes ascertaining the multiplicand and
multiplying the same by the multiplier. As noted in A. Manavalagan
( supra ), the significant difference lay in the figure adopted as the
multiplicand. For the assessment of ‘ loss of dependency ’, the annual
contribution made by the deceased to the family constitutes the
multiplicand, whereas, in cases of ‘ loss of estate ’, the multiplicand
comprises the annual savings of the deceased; the selection of multiplier
remains the same.
49. One of the illustrations provided in A. Manavalagan ( supra ) was
that where the deceased was survived by an educated wife who was
earning an amount almost equal to that of her husband , and each of them
was maintaining a separate establishment, the question of ‘ loss of
dependency ’ would not arise. This was based on the assumption that if
both spouses pooled their respective incomes and, thereafter, spent from
the said common pool , the amount spent by each spouse towards
personal and living expenses would comparatively be higher, that is,
three-fourths of the income. Consequently, only the remaining one-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 21 of 37
`
fourth [ 25% ] would be saved. In such a case, ‘ loss to estate ’ would be
assessed on that basis by applying the appropriate multiplier. However,
if both spouses were earning and living under a common roof, the
surviving spouse would be entitled to compensation both under the head
of ‘loss of estate ’ [ savings to the extent of one-third of the income ] and
‘ loss of dependency ’ [ for loss of services rendered in managing the
household ].
50. The aforesaid rule was employed for computing compensation in
Keith Rowe ( supra ).
51. It was further noted that where a husband and wife , having
separate incomes, live together and share expenses, the joint living
expenses are less than twice the expenses that each would incur while
living separately, thereby conferring a benefit upon one another. This
results in higher savings, that is, one-third of the income. The loss of
benefit of services rendered by the other spouse in managing the
household, taken at Rs. 12,000/- per annum, would then be added to the
aforesaid savings. Accordingly, the surviving spouse would be entitled to
compensation under the heads of ‘ loss of dependency ’ [ towards loss of
services rendered in managing the household ] as well as ‘ loss to estate ’
[ towards savings to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- ], both of which are to be
multiplied. This formula was adopted by the learned Single Judge in
Keith Rowe ( supra ) and was subsequently followed in Pawan Kumar
Sharma ( supra ) and Ashok Kumar Kochhar ( supra ).
Contemporaneously, another judgment was delivered by the same
learned Single Judge in Dinesh Adhlak v. Pritam Singh , 2010 SCC
OnLine Del 165.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 22 of 37
`
52. However, in the Supreme Court’s decision in Arun Kumar
Agrawal ( supra ), Justice A.K. Ganguly specifically observed, albeit
without reference to Keith Rowe ( supra ), that limiting the income of a
‘ non-earning spouse ’ to not more than one-third of the income of the
earning spouse cannot be justified on any rational basis.
53. It is essential to discuss the aforesaid decision rendered by the
Single Judge of this Court, particularly since it seeks to carve out a
separate category of ‘ loss of estate ’ in respect of those claimants who,
though family members of the deceased, do not strictly fall within the
realm of ‘ dependency ’.
54. Although this judgment precedes the decision rendered by the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi ( supra ), the
reasoning adopted therein appears to have been followed in subsequent
decisions.
55. From the assessment in Keith Rowe ( supra ) and the subsequent
decisions following it, it transpires that the principles laid down in Keith
Rowe ( supra ) do not apply to those falling within the realm of
‘ dependency ’, namely parents, spouses, and children . Therefore, the said
principles may not be strictly applicable to the case at hand, where the
claimant is the husband of the deceased. However, it is necessary to
clear the air with respect to these principles.
Decision in Indrawati v. Ranbir Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 114
56. In Indrawati v. Ranbir Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 114, a
clarification of Keith Rowe ( supra ) and Dinesh Adhlak ( supra ) was
supplied by the same judge who authored Keith Rowe ( supra ). This case
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 23 of 37
`
involved a claim by parents of the deceased in respect of the death of
their child who was 23 years of age.
57. The Tribunal held that they were not entitled to compensation
under the head of ‘ loss of dependency ’, but only under the ‘ loss of estate ’
in terms of principles laid down in Keith Rowe ( supra ).
58. However, the High Court concluded that parents of the deceased
are considered, in law, as dependent on their children , as children are
bound to support their parents in old age. Even if parents are not
dependant on their children at the time of accident, they would be both
financially and emotionally dependant on their children at later stages of
life. On this basis, it was clarified that principles laid down in Keith
Rowe ( supra ) and Dinesh Adhlak ( supra ) would not apply to a claim for
compensation filed by parents in respect of death of their child , and
would apply to claims of ‘ loss of estate ’ made by claimants other than
parents , spouse and children .
59. In fact, this principle finds application in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Dev Kumari , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1645, wherein a Coordinate
Bench of this Court, in a claim filed by married sisters of the deceased,
denied compensation under the head of ‘ loss of dependency ’. However,
the Court held them entitled to compensation under the head of ‘ loss to
the estate ’. The Court further noted that the Tribunal had, in fact, held
the two married sisters entitled to loss of savings / loss to the estate , but
had erroneously applied the formula meant for calculating the
multiplicand in case of ‘ loss of dependency ’. Accordingly, savings at
50% of the notional income, along with future prospects , was taken as
the multiplicand, and the appropriate multiplier for loss of savings / loss to
the estate was applied.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 24 of 37
`
60. The Court clarified this aspect of the principles laid down in Keith
Rowe ( supra ) in the paragraph extracted hereinbelow:
“ 22. It was further explained that the procedure for
determination of “Loss to Estate” is broadly the same
as the procedure for determination of “Loss of
Dependency ”. Both involve ascertaining the
multiplicand and capitalising it by multiplying it by an
appropriate multiplier. But the significant difference is
that in cases of Claimants who are dependents can
claim “Loss of Dependency”, while those who are not
dependents, can only claim “Loss to the Estate”. The
annual contribution to the family constitutes the
multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency,
whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes
the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate . The
method of selection of multiplier, is however the same
in both the cases. It was also emphasized that the
quantum of savings will vary from person to person
and would be subject to any specific evidence led by
the Claimants . ”
61. The Supreme Court also took note of the decision in Keith Rowe
( supra ) in Pushkar Mehra v. Brij Mohan Kushwaha, (2015) 12 SCC
688. The said case was one wherein the claim petition had been filed by
the widow of the deceased, along with his mother and children . ‘ Loss of
dependency ’ was awarded by the Tribunal, which was challenged by the
Insurance Company. The court held that since no claimant was
dependent upon the deceased, there was no ‘ loss of dependency ’, and
claimants were only entitled to compensation under the head of ‘ loss of
estate ’, on the basis of the decision in Keith Rowe ( supra ).
62. The High Court’s decision was challenged before the Supreme
Court on the ground that, in the facts of Keith Rowe ( supra ), the salary
had to be proved by way of documentary evidence.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 25 of 37
`
63. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and the High Court
ought to have taken the wages of the deceased equivalent to that of a
skilled worker while awarding the ‘ loss of dependency ’ by applying the
standard formula.
64. It is, therefore, quite clear that, even though the principles
enunciated in Keith Rowe ( supra ), relying upon A. Manavalagan
(supra) , have not been deviated from by any judgment of the Supreme
Court or any High Court, on the point of law, the principles governing
compensation would be split into two worlds . The first pertains to
compensation under ‘ loss of dependency ’, in cases where claim for
compensation is brought by dependants, including the spouse , parents
and children and, the second , includes claims brought by claimants other
than parents , spouse, and children , such as siblings and other relatives to
whom loss of estate would be granted.
65. Compensation under ‘ loss of dependency ’ would be calculated in
accordance with the principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi (supra) and
Sarla Varma (supra) . Therefore, the multiplicand would be calculated
on the basis of notional income of the deceased, after adding future
prospects and deducting personal and living expenses . The same would
then be multiplied by the appropriate multiplier, as provided in the
standard tabulation. However, to calculate ‘ loss of estate ’, the element of
savings would have to be considered which, depending on the facts of
the case, may differ, from the amount to be considered while calculating
the ‘ loss of dependency ’. Thereafter, the appropriate multiplier would be
applied.
66. Furthermore, the Court notes that there is not too much of a
difference between these two approaches and that they may, in some
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 26 of 37
`
cases, lead to a similar calculation. However, for the purposes of
classification, we clarify that the terminologies employed in ‘ loss of
dependency ’ and ‘ loss of estate ’ are different. While ‘ loss of
dependency ’ refers to compensation for the loss of benefit arising from
the income/services of the deceased, ‘ loss of estate ’, in effect, refers to
the contribution that the deceased would have made to his or her estate,
the benefit of which would now be go to whoever claims for the estate.
67. As can be seen, there is only marginal difference between the
two. However, marginal differences arise only in exceptional cases
where the issue of ‘ loss of estate ’ arises.
68. The feature of loss of estate ’, as laid down by the decision in A.
Manavalagan (supra) , and further applied by Keith Rowe ( supra ),
continues to survive; however, it has to be applied with caution and only
in exceptional cases where the claimant is beyond the realm of
‘ dependency ’ and is not a parent , spouse or a child , even if, such parent ,
spouse or child is earning.
International jurisprudence
69. It may be instructive to gain a sense of what international courts in
foreign jurisdictions have held in respect of compensation revolving
around the death of a spouse:
(i) In Harris v. Empress Motors Ltd. [1984] 1 WLR 212 CA, a
claim by a widow and two sons was filed under the Fatal
Accidents Act, 1976, and involved assessment of
dependency, raising issues regarding the manner in which
personal living expenses ought to be deducted while
computing dependency. The Court of Appeal noted that, in
past, calculation for dependency had called for a ‘ tedious
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 27 of 37
`
inquiry ’ into how much housekeeping money was paid to
the wife and how much was spent on the children’s shoes,
etc. However, this had been “ swept away and the modern
practice is to deduct a percentage from the net income
figure to represent what the deceased would have spent
exclusively on himself ”. Where the family unit comprised a
husband and wife , the conventional figure was 33% , on the
basis that one-third was spent for the benefit of each spouse
and one-third for their joint benefit. Where there were
children , the deduction fell to 25% .
(ii) In Burgess v. Florence Nightingale Hospital for
Gentlewomen [1955] 1 QB 349, the plaintiff ( husband ) and
his wife were professional dancing partners and their
income was derived from demonstration fees and prize
money won in competitions. The wife died as a result of the
negligence of a surgeon, and a claim was made under the
Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, for loss of contribution towards
joint living expenses . The claim was challenged on the
ground that there was no evidence to establish that the wife
had contributed out of her share of the income. The counter-
argument advanced by the opposing counsel was that, had
the position been reversed and the wife had been suing on
account of the death of the husband , “ no one would have
thought of contending that at least a half was not paid by
the husband ”. It was further submitted that “ the possibility
of contention really only arises ” because “ this is a claim in
respect of the wife and not of the husband ”. The Court noted
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 28 of 37
`
that the argument appeared to proceed on the assumption
that a higher degree of proof ought to be required for the
assertion that a wife contributes towards joint expenses than
would ordinarily be expected in the case of a husband . The
Court, therefore, held us under:
“ I do not think that under present conditions any
such greater burden of proof ought to be imposed,
or that there is any presumption one way or the
other. No doubt, 50 or 100 years ago, the
presumption was that the husband paid all the joint
living expenses and anything that the wife earned
was a sort of pin money, which she could keep for
herself; but I do not think that it fits the facts of
modern married life, and I do not think that it fits the
case of the very sensible in ordinary way in which
the married couple in this case were in fact carrying
on their married life. They were both earning
equally, and both contributing equally and I think
the wife was just as much contributing to the joint
living expenses by the way in which they were
discharged, as she had kept the money herself and
then handed it over to her husband ”.
(emphasis added)
It may be noted that the reference of Burgess ( supra ) was
also made in Keith Rowe ( supra) .
(iii) In Nielsen et al v. Kaufimann 54 OR (2d) 188, [1986] OJ
No 2359, 54 OR (2d) 188, a decision of the Ontario Court
of Appeal, Canada, a very notable observation was made in
case involving two ‘ breadwinners ’ in the family:
“ The fact that there are two "breadwinners" in the
family skews the applicability of the "conventional"
principle and figures somewhat. Those figures are
based on a male breadwinner as the sole support of
the family. The trial judge does not appear to have
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 29 of 37
`
considered how the "conventional" figures might be
affected when there is a two-wage earner family. It
must be assumed that in such families some portion
of the husband's income goes to the wife or vice
versa. That portion remains with the survivor. The
appellant's expert, Dr. Segal, was of the view that in
a two wage- earner family the deceased would
consume 30% of the total family income of husband
and wife. The deceased would be partially
dependent on the income that the surviving spouse is
receiving and, therefore, there is an offset of that
amount which the surviving spouse is no longer
paying and for which "credit" should be given.
Counsel for the appellant submits that in such
families the appropriate dependency percentage
should be 50% rather than 70%. ”
(emphasis added)
(iv) In Hechavarria v. Reale [2000] O.J. No. 4288, yet another
judgment by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice relied
upon the decision in Nielsen ( supra ), wherein the Court
found that the ‘ cross-dependency approach ’ was not
suitable, since there was evidence to show that the deceased
lady spent almost the entirety of her income on family and
relatives, retaining only a small portion on personal
expenses . It was, therefore, stated that the results of cross-
dependency approach were skewed by the assumption that a
significant portion of the deceased income had been spent
on herself; whereas evidence established the contrary. The
Court observed as under:
“ 26. Having said that, however, there are also
problems with using the cross-dependency approach
which I will review in a moment. In the end result, it
seems to me that the proper determination of what
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 30 of 37
`
approach should be taken to the loss of income
claim should, first and foremost, be driven by the
factual situation that is before the court. In other
words, whatever approach is eventually adopted
should give rise to a result that reflects, to the
degree possible, the factual realities of the family
whose loss is being determined. In this case, the
evidence establishes to my satisfaction that Winsome
Hechavarria used her income almost entirely for
expenses of the family as well as for her mother and
sisters. She spent little of her income on herself.
While I acknowledge that some portion of Winsome
Hechavarria's income was used to pay for her
automobile, it seems to me that any "savings"
resulting from that fact are more than offset by the
loss of use of that second vehicle to the family
including the transportation that she provided to the
children.
27. In my view, the cross-dependency approach
urged by Dr. Pesando would lead to a result that
does not accord with the realities of the Hechavarria
family because it does not account for the actual use
to which the income of Winsome Hechavarria was
put. The results of that approach are skewed by the
assumption that a significant portion of Winsome
Hechavarria income was spent by her on herself
whereas the evidence, as I have already stated,
establishes the contrary. The cross-dependency
approach may be appropriate in cases where the
factual situation before the court more closely
resembles the assumptions which are built-in to the
approach, particularly the assumptions regarding
the levels of personal income expenditures, but I do
not accept that the cross-dependency approach is
the appropriate approach to be used in this case.
28. Rather, it seems to me that the fairest approach,
and the approach which most closely accords with
the facts in this case, is the one used by the Court of
Appeal in Nielsen, that is, what might be called the
modified sole dependency approach. This approach
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 31 of 37
`
reflects both the fact that Winsome Hechavarria
used her income almost exclusively for the benefit of
the family and relatives and at the same time reflects
the reality that there must be some "savings" from
the fact that there is one less member in the family
unit…. ”
(emphasis added)
(v) A similar situation arose in Chouza (Personal
Representative of Albino Otero Rodriguez, Deceased) v.
Martins & Ors. [2021] EWHC 1669 (QB), wherein the
Queen’s Bench Division, dealt with a claim by a partner of
the deceased, who were in a relationship, although the
claimant described her as a housewife . There was an
extensive discussion regarding the deceased’s frugality and
limited personal expenditure, which persuaded the Court to
adopt percentages higher than conventional deductions
derived in Harris v. Empress Motors ( supra ) which was
one-third . The Court adopted its own percentage rather than
undertaking a tedious examination of household expenses,
and assessed dependency at 85% pre-retirement and 70%
dependency post-retirement.
Assessment in the present case
70. Having considered and traversed through these large tracts of
jurisprudence, both domestic and international, this Court concludes that,
in the present case, where an ‘ earning wife ’ had passed away leaving
behind an ‘ earning husband ’, there exists no basis for accepting the plea
of the appellant/Insurance Company that only ‘ loss of estate ’ ought to be
awarded. The clarification supplied by the Single Judge who authored
Keith Rowe ( supra ) in the subsequent judgment in Indrawati ( supra )
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 32 of 37
`
precludes the adoption of the principle of ‘ loss of estate ’ for those who
are dependants, including an ‘ earning spouse ’. This also resonates with
the view taken by this Court that an ‘ earning husband ’ is not necessarily
“ not dependent ” upon the income of the deceased wife .
71. Since the ‘ issue of dependency ’ operates in a broader context, it
must be viewed in a larger sense and not merely as simplicitor
dependency in the literal sense of the term. Where there is a ‘ joint
income ’ sustaining the household, the dependency of the surviving
spouse extends to the extent of the loss occasioned by the contribution of
the deceased spouse to the ‘ corpus of the household ’, whether through
pecuniary earnings or through non-pecuniary contributions in the form of
gratuitous services rendered in running the household.
72. In the present case, compensation would encompass both the
pecuniary and non-pecuniary aspects of the wife’s contribution, and the
Tribunal has rightly assessed compensation under the head of ‘ loss of
dependency ’. The annual income of the deceased was taken from her
employment records, future prospects were added at 40% , deduction
towards personal and living expenses was taken at one-half, considering
that she was contributing towards the family along with her husband ,
and ‘ loss of dependency ’ was accordingly calculated.
73. Considering that the claimant was the only surviving member of
the family, the Tribunal adopted a conservative approach in deducting
personal and living expenses at one-half instead of potentially one-third ,
particularly considering that the daughter and mother-in-law would
otherwise have constituted additional dependants. In the peculiar facts of
the present case, where the daughter , mother-in-law , and niece also
passed away in the same accident, the deduction was taken at one-half ,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 33 of 37
`
which may be justified not only on that basis but also having regard to
the discussion hereinabove concerning joint household income. Another
possible view may have been to deduct one-third .
74. However, this Court considers the deduction of one-half to be
appropriate, considering that there were two earning members and that
the benefit accruing to the husband towards the household corpus would
effectively have been approximately 50% of the wife’s income. Even if
the wife’s expenditure on herself was minimal, no evidence to that effect
has been placed on record by the claimant. Therefore, the assessment at
one-half , in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, appears to be
appropriate.
75. Accordingly, considering that all other components are aligned
with the decisions in Pranay Sethi ( supra ), said impugned award passed
by the MACT seems to be correct and needs no interference.
76. However, if the calculation was as per Keith Rowe ( supra ),
calculation of compensation would have been as follows:
S. NO. HEADS Calculation As Per
Keith Rowe ( supra )
1 Income of deceased (A) (less Income Tax) Rs.42,186 /-
2 Add Future Prospects (B) @ 40% Rs.16,874 /-
3 Gross Monthly Income [(A+B) = C ] Rs.59,060/-
rd
4 Less Personal expenses of the deceased [2/3 ] ( D ) Rs.39,373 /-
5 Monthly loss to estate [C-D= E ] Rs.19,687 /-
6 Annual loss to estate (Ex12) Rs.2,36,244 /-
7 Multiplier ( F ) 16
8 Total loss to Estate (E x F = G ) Rs.37,79,904 /-
9 Medical expenses ( H ) Nil
10 Compensation for loss of consortium ( I ) (40,000x2) Rs. 48,400/-
11 Compensation for loss of love and affection ( J ) Nil
12 Compensation for loss of estate ( K ) Rs.18,150 /-
13 Compensation towards funeral expenses ( L ) Rs.18,150 /-
Total Compensation ( G+H+I+J+K+L =M) Rs.38,64,604 /-
Interest 9%
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 34 of 37
`
77. Otherwise, the calculation of the MACT is as under on the ‘ issue
of dependency ’:
S. NO. HEADS AWARDED BY THE
TRIBUNAL
1 Income of deceased (A) (less Income Tax) Rs. 42,186/-
2 Add Future Prospects (B) @ 40% Rs. 16,874 /-
3 Less Personal expenses of the deceased (C) @ 50% Rs. 29,530/-
4 Monthly loss of dependency [(A +B)-C = D] Rs. 29,530/-
5 Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.3,54,360 /-
6 Multiplier (E) 16
7 Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs.56,69,766 /-
8 Medical expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of consortium (H) (40,000x2) Rs.48,400 /-
10 Compensation for loss of love and affection (I) Nil
11 Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 18,150/-
12 Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs.18,150 /-
Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Rs.57,54,476 /-
Interest 9%
78. As can be seen, the only difference between the two calculations
lies in the deduction towards personal expenses , which, in terms of Keith
Rowe ( supra ), has effectively been taken at two-thirds , leaving one-third
towards savings, whereas in the dependency calculation, the deduction
has been taken at one-half on the basis of settled principles. Even though
Keith Rowe ( supra ) does not strictly apply, this comparison has been
undertaken in order to clarify that the approaches towards ‘ loss of
dependency ’ and ‘ loss of estate ’ may not, in practical terms, be
substantially different and primarily revolve around the deduction
towards personal expenses .
79. As a post script , the Court must take notice of a recent decision of
the Supreme Court in Shishu Pal v. Surjeet, 2026 SCC OnLine SC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 35 of 37
`
1114, rendered on 11th June 2026, after the present matter had been
finally heard and reserved for judgment. The aforementioned decision
concerned additional compensation to be granted in cases involving the
death of a homemaker . The issue before the Court was regarding
quantification / monetization of a homemaker’s contribution to her family,
in particular, and therefore, to the nation, at large. The Supreme Court
rendered a detailed opinion on inadequacy in assessing the contribution
of a homemaker and its translation into compensation for the claimants.
80. The Court introduced a new head of compensation termed ‘ loss of
domestic care ’, providing that in cases where the homemaker has no
income in monetary terms, compensation under this head would be
treated as the monthly income. The Court further stated that in cases
where the homemaker is ‘ part of the workforce ’, the component of ‘ loss
of domestic care ’, shall be in addition to the monthly income as may be
proved before the Tribunal/Courts.
81. However, since no cross-appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation has been filed on behalf of claimant/respondent no.1, and
no arguments have been made before this Court in that regard, this Court
is of the view that it would not be expedient or appropriate to go into this
aspect in the present case.
82. Accordingly, this appeal by appellant/Insurance Company stands
dismissed.
83. In view of dismissal of appeal, balance amount shall also be
disbursed in favour of the claimant/respondent no.1, in terms of the
directions passed by the Tribunal.
84. Pending applications, if any, are rendered as infructuous.
85. Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 36 of 37
`
86. Judgement be uploaded to the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
JULY 01, 2026/sm/ ya+tk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
12:36:44
MAC. APP. 509/2024 Page 37 of 37