Work Of A Homemaker Has Substantial Economic Value: Punjab & Haryana High Court Doubles Compensation In Motor Accident Case

The Court was hearing an appeal filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, in respect of injuries suffered by a homemaker who later succumbed to her injuries.

A Bench of Justice Sudeepti Sharma, who observed that the Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased housewife on the lower side, contrary to settled legal principles recognising the economic value of homemaking services, remarked: “The work of a housewife transcends caretaking embracing preparation of meals for the entire family; procurement of groceries and household supplies; cleaning and maintenance of the house and surroundings; financial planning and budget management; child care and education; tending to elderly dependents; coordinating repairs and homebased healthcare etc. These services, if procured in the open market, would command substantial remuneration, underscoring the integral role played by a homemaker in family stability”.

Background

The claimant, a homemaker, sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident and remained in a vegetative state for a prolonged period before her death. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads, including loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimants approached the High Court seeking enhancement, contending that the notional income of the deceased had been incorrectly assessed and that several heads of compensation warranted reconsideration.

The insurance company, on the other hand, argued that the compensation awarded was excessive and unsupported by evidence, particularly in relation to future medical expenses.

Court’s Observation

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the settled jurisprudence governing the assessment of compensation in motor accident cases, particularly where the injured or deceased is a homemaker.

Relying on precedents of the Supreme Court and earlier decisions of the High Court, the Court reiterated that the work of a housewife cannot be undervalued merely because it does not generate direct monetary income. The Court noted that a homemaker performs a wide range of functions, including preparing meals, managing the household, procuring supplies, planning finances, caring for children, attending to elderly dependents, and coordinating healthcare and household maintenance.

The Court observed that these services, if outsourced, would involve considerable expenditure and therefore have substantial economic value. In this context, the Court held that assessing the contribution of a homemaker merely as that of a “skilled worker” fails to do justice to her multifarious role within the family.

Taking note of inflation, rising cost of living, and the evolving judicial recognition of homemakers’ contributions, the Court reassessed the notional monthly income of the deceased at ₹15,000, enhancing it from the amount fixed by the Tribunal.

The Court further observed that the claimant had suffered grievous injuries, including serious head injuries, remained on ventilatory support, and lived in a complete vegetative state until her demise. In view of the prolonged suffering, dependency, and loss of dignity endured by the claimant, the Court enhanced compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, attendant charges, transportation, loss of amenities of life, and special diet.

The Court also rejected the insurance company’s objection to the grant of future medical expenses, holding that such costs, having accrued during the lifetime of the injured claimant, formed part of her estate and were recoverable by her legal heirs.

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the High Court modified the award passed by the Tribunal and enhanced the total compensation payable to the claimants. The enhanced compensation was directed to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

The insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest within the stipulated period, with consequential directions for disbursement to the claimants.

Cause Title: Shilpa Jain (Since Deceased) Through LRs v. Inderjeet Jain & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:004926)

Appearances

Appellants: M.K. Mittal, Advocate

Respondents: Punit Jain, Advocate, Farheen Bajwa, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment