Homemaker’s household services cannot be ignored in accident compensation merely because she is over 70: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that while determining motor accident compensation, a homemaker’s unpaid household and caregiving services cannot be disregarded merely because she is above 70 years of age [Ganga Devi v Rajesh Kumar & Ors].

Justice Anish Dayal said 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. 

The Court warned against such prejudices and said that data 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 ruled. 

The Court made the observations while allowing an appeal filed by Ganga Devi, who was 74 when a bus accident in February 2019 crushed both her legs. She suffered 74 percent permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded her ₹14.42 lakh in compensation but denied claims for loss of income and future income. The tribunal reasoned that she was an elderly woman who had never been employed and that there was insufficient evidence of her contribution to household work.

However, the Court rejected this approach. It observed that such assumptions risk perpetuating age-based stereotypes, commonly described as ageism.

The Court underscored that older people do not merely receive care from younger family members but also continue to provide valuable domestic assistance, including looking after grandchildren.

The court noted that unpaid household work has identifiable economic value, as families would otherwise have to spend money on cooking, childcare and other domestic services.

Ultimately, the Court said that Ganga Devi’s notional monthly income should be calculated using the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled worker in Delhi at the time of the accident, amounting to ₹16,962.

Therefore, it enhanced her compensation by ₹6.37 lakhs. 

Advocates Pooja Goel and  Muskaan Goel represented petitioner Ganga Devi. 

Advocates Pankaj Seth, Shruti Jain and Tanya Jindal appeared for the Insurance Company. 

[Read Judgment]