SHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The victim was a housewife. The claimant being the husband of the victim asserted in the claim application that the victim was also doing the tailoring job and earning Rs. 3,300/- per month to support the family. The claimant, however, could not satisfactorily prove such income. The Tribunal thus assessed annual income on notional basis and proceeded to assess it at Rs. 15,000/- and accordingly, awarded compensation. The Insurance Company satisfied with the award. The appellant is, however, not happy.
(2.) Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in assessing the annual income at Rs. 15,000/-. He refers to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010 Volume 4 WBLR (SC) 321 , where the Apex Court applied the theory of minimum income and assessed it at Rs. 3,000/- per month, i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Ganguly J. while agreeing with the view expressed by Singhvi, J., observed that the income of the housewife was not properly assessed in our society. His Lordship observed that there was a gender bias. His Lordship observed, "Women are generally engaged in home making, 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 unrecognized and they are never valued."
(3.) Relying on the said decision, Mr. Roy prays for enhancement of compensation.;