Deciding compensation for death of homemaker needs wide approach since money cannot make up for love, care of mother, wife: Delhi High Court

It is difficult to quantify in monetary terms the compensation for the death of a homemaker-woman since such compensation cannot make up for the love, care and warmth provided by the deceased person to her family, the Delhi High Court recently observed [National Insurance Co Ltd v. LRs of Sukhbir Singh]..Hence, deciding the compensation for the death of a homemaker demands a wider approach considering the the multi-facet gratuitous services provided such person to her family, the Court said.Justice Gaurang Kanth made the observation in response to an argument that in absence of proof of income and education, notional income of a homemaker could not be computed based on Minimum Wages Act."As complex and uphill task as it can be, computation of an award to compensate for death of a homemaker demands wider approach considering the multi-facet gratuitous services provided by a homemaker to her family. This Court is cognizant of the role played by a housewife as a wife, mother, daughter, daughter-in-law etc. which cannot be accurately quantified in terms of monetary form, no matter how skilfully Courts and Tribunal deal with the same. Monetary compensation can provide financial cushion to the bereaved family, but certainly cannot make up for love, care and warmth provided by a mother or a wife to her family,” the Court said..The Court was hearing an appeal filed by an insurance company against an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). The MACT had awarded compensation to the claimants for the loss of their family members in a motor accident. The claimants were three children of the two deceased individuals and the mother of one of the deceased..The insurance company challenged the compensation granted in respect of the deceased woman, who was a homemaker with no income.The challenge was primarily on the ground that the MACT wrongly computed her notional income based on Minimum Wages Act.The company told the Court that the MACT did not deduct any amount towards personal expenses and further added 25% towards assumed income for calculating future increase of income while calculating 'loss of dependency'.Loss of dependency was erroneously awarded as there was no proof that the claimants were financially dependent on the earnings of the deceased, it was contended.As such, the company contended that the compensation of ₹17.38 lakh was unjust and unreasonable..The counsel for the claimants admitted that personal expenses were to be deducted from the compensation awarded in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi..The Court after referring to the apex court's ruling in Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co., noted that it was no longer res integra that compensation has to be awarded towards the death of a homemaker in a motor vehicle accident. .In this context, the Court observed that considering the multi facet gratuitous services provided by a homemaker, computation of an award to compensate for their death demands a wider approach.The Court affirmed that it was cognizant of the essential role played by a homemaker as a wife, mother, daughter, daughter-in-law, etc., which cannot be accurately quantified in terms of monetary value, no matter how skillfully Courts and Tribunals attempt to address it.Moreover, it acknowledged that monetary compensation could not make up for the love, care and warmth provided by a mother or wife to her family..Thereafter, the Court noted that in absence of any evidence, courts have to determine the notional income of the injured based on minimum wages notified under Minimum Wages Act. Hence, it ruled that the MACT had made no mistake in computing the notional income.Based on the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court determined that an addition of 40 percent of the established income of the deceased was to be granted under the head “Future Prospects” instead of 25% as awarded by the MACT. Further, it made deductions for personal expenses.As a result, the Court determined the quantum of compensation to be ₹15.95 lakh. Hence, it allowed the petition and directed that the differential amount be returned to the insurance company..[Read Judgment]