Skilled-worker minimum wages and 40% future prospects apply to notional income of non-working homemakers.

On August 14, 2005, the deceased, Vijay Punjani, was driving a Santro car with his family when an offending Tractor-trolley steered right without warning, causing a collision

Vijay Punjani succumbed to his injuries, while his wife, Lata Punjani (Respondent No. 1), suffered 40% permanent disability

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 32,28,000 with 9% interest on November 30, 2017

The Appellant Insurance Company challenged the quantum, arguing that the MACT erred in calculating a homemaker's income based on 2008 skilled worker rates for a 2005 accident, and incorrectly applied a 1.5x multiplier for "24-hour service"

1. Whether the notional income of a homemaker should be assessed based on the minimum wages of a skilled worker and if a 1.5x enhancement for "24-hour service" is legally sustainable.

2. Whether the MACT erred in its calculation of loss of future income and the granting of specific non-pecuniary heads.

The Court applied the principle that a homemaker’s contribution is invaluable and must be compensated through a pecuniary estimate of "services" as established in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

It followed Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which mandates fixing a "truest approximation" of economic value based on facts and circumstances rather than fixed formulas

Future prospects were governed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, fixed at 40% for the age group

Regarding non-pecuniary heads, the Court applied Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, holding that "hardship/mental stress" is subsumed under "pain and suffering," and R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. regarding the objective standards for "calculating the incalculable"

The Court found the MACT’s 1.5x enhancement of wages irrational and deleted it, stating it was disproportionate to add such a factor to notional wages

It corrected the base income to the 2005 minimum wage of Rs. 3,468.9 instead of the 2008 rates

The Court increased future prospects from 25% to 40% per Pranay Sethi guidelines

Critically, the Court observed that the MACT double-counted by including "loss of income during treatment" within the "loss of future income" calculation

Finally, the Court removed the separate head for "mental stress/hardship" as it was legally redundant but balanced this by increasing the awards for "loss of amenities" and "mental/physical shock" by Rs. 1,00,000 each to reflect the severity of the 40% disability

The Court held that while a homemaker's income can be equated to a skilled worker, notional enhancements for 'working hours' are impermissible

The Appellant was directed to receive a refund of any excess deposited amount, while the claimant was entitled to the revised sum plus 9% interest