Notional Income Assessment of Elderly Homemakers Must Reflect Invaluable Domestic Contributions and Functional Disability During Compensation Calculations

On October 2, 2012, the appellant, Uma Rani (aged 68), was hit by a Santro car (driven by Respondent No. 1 and owned by Respondent No. 2) while waiting for a bus in New Delhi

Her husband died in the accident, and she sustained serious injuries resulting in a "below-knee amputation" and a permanent physical disability of 63%

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,06,860/- (inclusive of interest), taking her notional income at minimum wages of an unskilled worker solely for the period of hospitalization

The MACT did not account for the permanent disability in its computation of future loss of income

The appellant sought enhancement of the award before the High Court

1. Whether the MACT erred in failing to account for the appellant's 63% permanent physical disability while computing compensation for a homemaker

2. Whether the notional income of a homemaker should be assessed based on minimum wages of a skilled worker or a higher standard including "loss of domestic care"

3. Whether the non-pecuniary damages awarded for pain, suffering, and mental shock were adequate given the amputation

The Court applied the principles of "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

It relied on Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) regarding the economic value of a homemaker's unpaid labour and the addition of future prospects to notional income

It further applied Shishu Pal v. Surjeet (2024), which recognized "loss of domestic care" as a distinct head of compensation for homemakers

For assessing functional disability versus medical disability, the Court followed Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011)

Precedents like Sarla Verma v. DTC were used for the multiplier (5 for age 68)

Pranay Sethi (2017) governed the denial of future prospects for those above 60 years

The Court found the MACT’s award "highly inadequate" as it ignored the lifelong impact of an amputation on a 68-year-old homemaker

It reasoned that a homemaker’s contribution is invaluable and cannot be restricted to the lowest tier of minimum wages; thus, it fixed the notional income at Rs. 10,000/- per month to include elements of "loss of domestic care"

Although the medical disability was 63% of the limb, the Court assessed the "functional disability" at 50% relative to her total earning capacity/household roles

The Court granted expenditure for treatment and conveyance despite lack of original bills (due to CGHS reimbursement hurdles) by exercising judicial discretion

Multiplier '5' was applied based on her age, but future prospects were denied as she was over 60

Non-pecuniary heads were significantly increased to reflect the "subjective and life-altering nature" of the amputation

The Court held that a homemaker’s income must reflect their multifaceted role, awarding Rs. 3,00,000 for loss of future earnings and Rs. 2,00,000 each for "Pain and Suffering" and "Mental and Physical Shock"

It further ordered the provision of Rs. 1,00,000 for artificial limb maintenance

The Respondents were directed to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks