Older homemakers’ unpaid work must count in accident compensation; age alone is no bar, Delhi High Court says

The appellant, aged 74 at the time of the accident, was a homemaker who was injured when a bus ran over her legs.

She sustained 74% permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs, including a below-knee amputation of her left leg and amputation of all toes of her right foot.

The MACT awarded her Rs. 14,42,000 with interest but made no award for loss of income or future income, reasoning that her age and lack of evidence of household work precluded such compensation.

She appealed, seeking enhancement, including compensation for her homemaking contribution and continuing assistance needs.

1. Whether a homemaker’s advanced age, without more, justifies denying compensation for the loss of her gratuitous household and caregiving services.

2. Whether the appellant’s permanent physical disability warranted an assessment of functional disability and compensation for past and future loss of income.

3. Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation for attendant care, prosthetic-limb costs and pain and suffering, and what multiplier should apply.

Under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation must be just and reasonable; the Act’s beneficial purpose does not permit an age-based assumption that an older person has ceased to contribute to the household.

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar requires the court to assess the effect of permanent physical disability on the claimant’s actual functional and earning capacity, rather than mechanically equating physical disability with economic loss.

Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. recognises the economic value of homemakers’ services and permits a fact-sensitive assessment of notional income and future prospects; Shishu Pal v. Surjeet recognises loss of domestic care as a compensable head, though its specific composite award applies only where its stated conditions are met.

Under Sarla Verma v. DTC and Pranay Sethi, the multiplier is standardised and future prospects are not added for a claimant above 60.

Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC and Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways support compensation for replacement and maintenance of prosthetic limbs.

Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand establish that gratuitous attendant assistance may be compensated.

The Court held that the MACT’s reasoning rested on an unsupported age-based assumption: older women may continue to provide household and caregiving services, and unpaid work has an economic value.

Given the appellant’s asserted role caring for her grandchildren, the Court assessed her notional income at the Delhi minimum wage for a skilled worker—Rs. 16,962 per month.

Her injuries and prolonged treatment justified three months’ loss of income; her 74% physical disability, assessed in light of her age and homemaking activities, translated into 50% functional disability.

The Court applied a multiplier of 5, notwithstanding that she was over 70, and made no addition for future prospects because she was over 60.

It increased attendant charges to Rs. 5,00,000 and pain and suffering to Rs. 1,00,000, and ordered a further Rs. 1,30,000 for a prosthetic limb and Rs. 75,000 for its maintenance, subject to the stated deposit and release conditions.

It separately directed payment of the prosthetic-limb and maintenance amounts, with the limb funds subject to proof of purchase and the prescribed FDR arrangements.

The enhanced amount, with interest from the date of filing the claim petition, was ordered deposited before the MACT within four weeks; Rs. 1,37,307 was to be released to the appellant, with the balance placed in successive FDRs.