New Delhi- In a landmark judgment that recognises the economic and social value of unpaid domestic labour, the Supreme Court has enhanced compensation to nearly ₹62.78 lakh for the family of a homemaker who died in a motor accident more than two-and-a-half decades ago. The Court described homemakers as “Nation Builders” and directed the addition of a new head of compensation titled “loss of domestic care” in all future claims involving the death of a homemaker.
The appeal stemmed from a tragic accident on November 25, 2001, when the wife of appellant Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram, while travelling from Sirsa to Fatehabad, lost her life due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, initially awarded a modest ₹2,42,000 in December 2003. The Punjab and Haryana High Court later enhanced it to ₹8,43,400 with interest in December 2024. Dissatisfied with the amount, the family approached the Supreme Court.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal on June 11, and substantially increased the compensation. The Court noted that the prolonged litigation spanning 25 years compounded the family’s suffering, observing that “the idea of ‘just and fair’ compensation requires that an amount of money be paid to the claimants that would, as far as possible, place them in a position as if the unfortunate incident of the death of their loved one had not taken place.”
The judgment highlighted systemic delays in motor accident claims cases. The Court pointed out that the High Court file was affected by a fire in 2011, contributing to years of pendency. Analysing over a hundred similar appeals, it found that High Courts take an average of approximately eight years and Tribunals around six years to decide such matters. “For the purpose of general understanding, it may be so considered across the board that, such a case arising out of either an injury or death... should not be pending at the level of the High Court for a period greater than four years,” the bench observed.
A major portion of the judgment focused on recognising the invaluable contribution of homemakers. The Court criticised the conventional view that treats homemakers as dependants.
“It is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependant on earning members, when, in reality the household’s functioning depends substantially on the homemaker,” it stated. Referring to Indian cultural context, the judgment noted: “when in Indian society, the ‘woman of the house’ is called the ‘grihaswamini’, then why are we still groping in the dark about the questions such as the one present in this case.”
The Supreme Court extensively discussed global and Indian evidence on unpaid care work. It referenced the 2019 Time Use Survey, highlighting that women aged 15-59 spend over seven hours daily on unpaid domestic tasks compared to less than three hours by men. Their contribution, the Court observed, is estimated at 15-17% of India’s GDP, yet remains largely unrecognised in economic measurements. The bench emphasised that homemakers not only manage households but also shape human capital and social bonds across generations.
In a progressive move, the Supreme Court introduced a new compensatory head to address the undervaluation of a homemaker’s role. It directed that in cases involving the death of a homemaker, Tribunals, High Courts, and the Supreme Court must add a composite sum of ₹30,000 per month (as notional monthly income) under the head “loss of domestic care”. This covers three key aspects: the homemaker’s contribution to the smooth functioning of the household, loss of maternal support for children, and loss of spousal or parental support. This amount is to be revised upwards by 10% every three years and will apply in addition to conventional heads such as loss of consortium as per the Pranay Sethi judgment.
Applying this to the present case, where the deceased had no proven monetary income, the Court treated ₹30,000 as the monthly notional income. After adding 40% future prospects (considering her age of 35), applying a multiplier of 16, making deductions, and adding conventional heads (loss of consortium at ₹48,400 per dependant, loss of estate, and funeral expenses), the total compensation was quantified at ₹62,77,900. The insurance company is directed to pay this amount along with the interest rates stipulated by the High Court.
The judgment also issued several directions to expedite disposal of motor accident claims. Claimants must now file essential documents such as proof of age (excluding Aadhaar), disability certificates, ITRs or salary slips, and medical bills along with the petition. The Court requested Chief Justices of High Courts to prioritise MACT appeals pending for more than four years and consider increasing dedicated benches. Tribunals were urged to adopt summary procedures wherever possible.
Concluding on a forward-looking note, the Supreme Court expressed hope for a change in societal and judicial language: “It is our hope that the word housewife/homemaker... is in future, in recognition of the contributions of the lady of the house... used as ‘Nation Builder’.”
This decision is set to have far-reaching implications, providing a stronger framework for fair compensation to families of homemakers and acknowledging their critical, often invisible, role in nation-building. The full judgment is expected to guide lower courts in delivering more equitable outcomes in similar cases.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.