“
“The role of the homemaker is neither entirely economic nor entirely non-economic and blends the factors of economy with emotional and managerial contributions and as such fixed compensation in terms of loss of consortium does not cover the entire gamut of their contribution”
The Supreme Court has strongly asserted that in motor accident compensation cases involving the death of a homemaker, the Court must not confine itself to outdated or conservative notional income figures that inherently undervalue her contribution. To address this structural disadvantage, and while continuing to apply the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] for consortium and other conventional heads, a separate and additional compensatory head of “loss of domestic care” must be recognised. This head is intended to account for the homemaker’s contribution to smooth functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support for children, and the loss of spousal support or, in the case of parents, the support and care of their adult child.
The Court held that where all three of the above components are present, a composite sum of Rs. 30,000 per month shall be taken under the head “loss of domestic care,” subject to cumulative revision by 10% every three years. In cases where the homemaker has no monetary income, this amount is to operate as the stand-in basic minimum monthly income for compensation purposes. Where the homemaker is also part of the workforce, the loss of domestic care component is to be awarded in addition to the proved monthly income.
Applying that principle to the present case, the Court rejected the unproved claim of stitching and knitting income, treated the deceased as a homemaker without proved monetary earnings, and used Rs. 30,000 per month as the monthly income under the head of loss of domestic care. After applying annual income, future prospects at 40%, multiplier of 16, deduction of one-fourth, and adding consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, the Court computed total compensation at Rs. 62.77 lakhs payable by the insurer, while keeping the interest directions of the High Court unchanged.
The Apex Court directed that when compensation is claimed before the Tribunal, all necessary supporting proof should accompany the claim as far as applicable, including official proof of date of birth excluding Aadhaar card, disability certificates specifying percentage and functional disability, salary documents such as ITRs or stamped employer certificates where income is claimed, duly attested medical bills where medical expenses are claimed, and a notarised affidavit disclosing salary where attendant charges are claimed in respect of an employed attendant.
The Court also requested the Chief Justices of all High Courts to issue directions for listing the oldest pending MACT compensation matters first, based on date of institution, taking as the relevant average any matter pending for more than four years. It also stated that the Chief Justices may consider, depending on pendency, whether the number of benches dealing with MACT compensation matters should be increased.
The Court further directed that Tribunals should strictly enforce expedition and, where possible, adopt the summary procedure contemplated by Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; if such procedure is not adopted, reasons should be recorded. It specifically directed that in death cases involving a homemaker, the head of “loss of domestic care” must be added. It also directed that the heads stipulated in Pranay Sethi case must be strictly adhered to, including the 10% enhancement every three years for loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that although the peculiar facts partly explained the pendency in the present case, long delay is a regular feature in motor accident claim cases. It stated that cases arising out of injury or death under a beneficial legislation should ordinarily not remain pending in the High Court for more than four years, subject only to exceptional circumstances such as heavy pendency or vacancies. The Bench noted from a tabular survey of decided appeals that in almost 50% of matters, pendency exceeded four years, and that the incidence of accumulated interest itself demonstrated the need for an institution-wide remedy.
On the position of a homemaker, the Bench observed that it is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependent on earning members when the functioning of the household substantially depends on the homemaker. It emphasised that unpaid domestic labour, caregiving, household management, and emotional and social support are indispensable contributions, though not conventionally reflected in GDP or in ordinary economic assessment. The Bench thus described homemakers as “nation builders” and stressed that their labour has economic, emotional, psychological, and social dimensions.
The Bench further observed that conventional compensation principles tend to undervalue the role of a homemaker. It noted that notional income figures are usually conservative and fail to capture the blend of economic and non-economic contributions made within the household. It also distinguished consortium from the wider domestic and caregiving contribution of a homemaker, stating that consortium primarily addresses emotional loss and does not sufficiently account for the economic value of household management, maternal support for children, and spousal support.
The Bench additionally observed that judicial language should move away from the term “housewife” and, in recognition of the contribution of the lady of the house, future usage should reflect that contribution. It referred to the Supreme Court’s handbook on combating gender stereotypes and noted the shift in terminology from “housewife” to “homemaker,” before finally expressing the hope that such persons would in future be referred to as “Nation Builder.”
Briefly, the appeal arose from a motor accident claim concerning the death of the claimant’s wife, who was a homemaker, in an accident dated 25 November 2001 caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 while she was travelling from Sirsa to Fatehabad. The fact of the accident was undisputed. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2.42 lakhs, however, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8.43 lakhs with interest at 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition, with stepped-up interest in case of delay in payment. Still dissatisfied, the claimants approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement.
