"Homemaker" Is A Gender-Neutral Term And Includes Working Person, Breadwinner Or Wage Earner: Karnataka High Court

The Court was hearing two Miscellaneous First Appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, one filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation disputing the compensation awarded and the other filed by the claimant seeking enhancement.

A Bench of Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed: “Every woman who renders services to her family members at home is liable to be regarded as a ‘HOMEMAKER’ irrespective of the fact that such woman holds higher qualification either it is a Degree or Post Graduation or a Doctorate. In the humble opinion of this Court, even a working woman or a professional can be considered to be a home maker so long as such woman renders services at home taking care and looking after the welfare of the family members. To consider a women as ‘HOMEMAKER’ it is not necessary to project or establish that she is illiterate or she stays at home 24x7 or that she attends only household work and nothing more. Any individual who tirelessly strives, showers unconditional love, sacrifices personal comfort at times and ultimately becomes a pillar for happy and stable family is a homemaker. These qualities are illustrative but not exhaustive. The word ‘HOMEMAKER’ is gender-neutral. A homemaker thus can be male or female. Also covers working person or bread winner or wage earner. Therefore this Court is of the view that the claimant in this case can well be considered to be a home maker.”

Advocate H.R. Renuka appeared for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation; Advocate Gopalkrishna N. appeared for the claimant.

Background

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru had awarded compensation of ₹4,55,243 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation challenged the award on quantum, while the claimant sought enhancement of compensation.

The Corporation contended that the claimant’s medical bills reflected the name of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and that she could not receive double benefit if the medical expenses had already been reimbursed. It also argued that the claimant had not examined her husband, though she stated in cross-examination that he worked in a company.

The claimant opposed deduction of medical expenses, contending that any reimbursement received was under a policy based on premium payments and could not reduce compensation payable by the wrongdoer or the employer of the wrongdoer. For enhancement, she submitted that she had a Master’s Degree in Biotechnology, had earlier worked as a Guest Lecturer, and even if she was not working on the date of accident, her services as a homemaker had to be valued for compensation.

Court's Observations

The Court first rejected the Corporation’s argument that amounts allegedly reimbursed through medical insurance should be deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The Court noted: “Undoubtedly the benefit of reimbursement arose due to the contract that was entered into by the claimant or to cover her risk, by anyone with the Insurance Company. Thus the contractual benefit of reimbursement of medical expenses is resultant of the policy obtained.”

It held that a wrongdoer or the employer of the wrongdoer cannot avoid liability merely because the claimant had received contractual insurance benefit.

The Court observed: “That does not mean that the wrongdoer or the employer of the wrongdoer who is liable to compensate can escape from liability by taking a plea that payments were made by the insurer from whom a policy was obtained to cover the risk.”

Relying on New India Assurance Company Limited v. Dolly Satish Gandhi, the Court held that medical insurance reimbursement and motor accident compensation stand on different footings.

The Court held: “Therefore, this Court holds that though the claimant receives the amount, spent for treatment from his/her insurer, who by virtue of contractual liability that exists, made such payment, yet, as such payment is made only after the claimant or anyone so as to cover the risk of the claimant paid consideration and thereby obtained promised advantage, such tangible benefit received by claimant cannot estop claimant to claim the amount spent for treatment from the insurer or owner of offending vehicle. Such claim cannot be termed to be double benefit.”

The Court then considered the claimant’s appeal for enhancement. The claimant had argued that, even if she was not working as a lecturer on the date of accident, she was entitled to compensation by valuing her services as a homemaker.

The Corporation opposed this by arguing that since the claimant had completed post-graduation, she could not be treated as a homemaker. The Court rejected that contention and held that educational qualification, professional status, paid employment, or earning capacity does not exclude a person from being considered a homemaker if they render services at home.

For calculating compensation, the Court took the claimant’s notional income at ₹8,000 per month, noting the accident year and the notional income adopted by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for persons who could not produce substantive proof of occupation and earnings.

The Court observed: “Having considered the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2013 and for the relevant period, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income of the persons who could not produce any substantive proof with regard to their occupation and earnings as Rs.8,000/- per month, this Court considers desirable to take the notional income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- per month.”

The Court noted from the medical record that the claimant was around 25 years old on the date of accident, applied multiplier 18 as per Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, and accepted the Tribunal’s assessment of 10% whole-body disability.

The Court held: “Thus taking the notional income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/-, applying appropriate multiplier ‘18’ and the disability in respect of whole body as 10%, the compensation which the claimant is entitled to receive towards financial loss which she would sustain in future due to permanent physical disability comes to Rs.1,72,800/- (8,000 x12x18x10%).”

The Court also considered the nature of the injuries, including comminuted fracture of talus with dislocation of ankle joint and fracture of medial malleolus, and held that the claimant could have taken bed rest for at least three months.

The Court observed: “Therefore the claimant being a homemaker might not have rendered any service to family. Therefore, the financial loss due to inability of the claimant to perform her duties at her family for those 3 months comes to Rs.24,000/- (8,000 x3).”

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and partly allowed the claimant’s appeal. It enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru by ₹1,96,800.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit, excluding the period of delay of 114 days. The Corporation was directed to deposit the enhanced sum within eight weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. On deposit, the claimant was permitted to withdraw the entire amount, and any amount already in deposit was directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

Cause Title: Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Pampapal (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:40705)

Click here to read/download Judgment