Compensation Cannot Rest On Stereotype That Persons Cease To Contribute With Age: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation For Elderly Homemaker Who Lost Leg In Road Accident
The Bench noted that the Supreme Court’s recognition of unpaid care work carries no age ceiling; fixed notional income at skilled-worker minimum wage and applies multiplier of 5 for claimant above 70.
Justice Anish Dayal, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessment of compensation should not be founded upon stereotypes or assumptions that a person ceases to contribute merely by reason of having attained an advanced age. Enhancing the award of a 74-year-old homemaker who lost a leg below the knee in a bus accident, the Court observed that the absence of monetary payment for her household services cannot diminish the compensation payable.
The Court found that the Supreme Court has prescribed no age limit while recognising the economic value of gratuitous services, and that reading one in would be contrary to the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act. It accordingly assessed her notional income at the skilled-worker minimum wage, applied a multiplier of 5 despite her being above 70, and held that a life expectancy of 70 years cannot be applied literally to someone who has already crossed it.
A Bench of Justice Anish Dayal observed, “…the assessment of compensation should not be founded upon stereotypes or assumptions that a person ceases to contribute merely by reason of having attained an advanced age. The Court must remain cognizant of the prejudice that may operate against older persons and guard against such considerations influencing the assessment of compensation…”.
“…The data referred to hereinabove further demonstrates that women beyond the age of 70 years continue to render gratuitous services to their families, including household and caregiving services. This Court is conscious that such contributions, particularly those rendered within the household and without monetary remuneration, are often overlooked or undervalued. However, the absence of a monetary consideration cannot operate to the advantage of the tortfeasor or diminish the compensation otherwise payable to the injured claimant”, the Bench noted.
Advocate Pooja Goel appeared for the appellant and Advocate Pankaj Seth appeared for the respondent.
The claimant was 74 when she was hit on February 19, 2019 while boarding a bus at Samaspur bus stand, Pandav Nagar. Both legs were crushed under the rear wheels. She suffered 74% permanent disability, with below-knee amputation of the left leg and loss of all toes of the right foot. A homemaker living in a joint family, she looked after her grandchildren.
The Tribunal at Karkardooma Courts, East District, awarded Rs. 14,42,000 with interest at 7.5% on December 23, 2023. It granted nothing for loss of income or future income, reasoning that a woman of 74, past retirement age, could not be presumed to render household services. The claimant appealed for enhancement. The insurer argued that her age warranted a “rationalised” valuation of such services and that the life expectancy of 72 years limited the applicable principles.
The Court said such a view, if founded merely on age, risks being shaped by prejudice. Placing relaince on data from the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India and a HelpAge India report, it noted that older women continue to provide care, and that childcare and household management carry an identifiable replacement value. It held that the principle of valuing unpaid care has no age ceiling.
“The economic significance of such work is evident even where the work itself is unpaid. Where a grandmother cares for a grandchild while the child's parents are engaged in paid employment, the family would otherwise have to incur expenditure on childcare. Similarly, where an older parent cooks, supervises children, undertakes household management, accompanies family members for medical care, manages domestic arrangements, or performs agricultural and allied activities, the family receives services having an identifiable replacement value, notwithstanding that no monetary consideration is paid and no invoice is generated”, the Bench said.
Functional disability was fixed at 50%, below the physical disability, given her age. Notional income was taken at Rs. 16,962 per month, the Delhi minimum wage for a skilled worker. The Court allowed three months’ loss of income, applied a multiplier of 5 and no future prospects. On prosthetics, it held the assumed life expectancy of 70 years cannot be taken literally for someone who has already crossed it. It awarded one further limb at Rs. 1,30,000 and Rs. 75,000 for maintenance. Attendant charges rose to Rs. 5,00,000, and pain and suffering to Rs. 1,00,000.
Total compensation was recomputed at Rs. 20,79,307, an enhancement of Rs. 6,37,307. This sum, with 7.5% interest from the date of the petition, is to be deposited within four weeks, with Rs. 1,37,307 released within two weeks thereafter. The balance goes into staggered FDRs of Rs. 30,000 each. The prosthetic amount is to be deposited within six weeks, without interest for the elapsed period, and released against verified invoices.
Cause Title: Ganga Devi v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9013)
Appearances:
Appellant: Pooja Goel and Muskaan Goel, Advocate.
Respondent: Pankaj Seth, Shruti Jain and Tanya Jindal, Advocates.