The Supreme Court on Thursday recognized loss of wife's domestic care as a separate head of compensation in motor accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act)..A Bench of Justice Sanjoy Karol and Justice NK Singh passed the ruling while granting additional compensation in a motor vehicle accident case to a widower for the loss of his wife.“The loss of domestic care would be an additional ground in addition to what has been laid down in Pranay Sethi. We only hope and trust that the homemaker will now acquire the acronym of nation-builder,” the Court said.The Court said the housewife contributes to the growth of the human being and the nation and quantified the amount for the loss of her domestic care at ₹30,000 per month."We are also of the view that the housewife contributes to the growth of the human being and the nation. And how do you assess that contribution in terms of monetising it? We have laid down the principles and, as a nation-builder, have quantified the amount that the loss of domestic care monthly income, in any event, would be ₹30,000 per month. We have also carved out a new principle following Pranay Sethi, and this is in addition to what has been laid down therein," the judgment said..We are of the view that the housewife contributes to the growth of the human being and the nation.Supreme Court.The Court emphasised that the contribution of homemakers extends far beyond unpaid household labour and plays a critical role in nation-building.“Apart from the fact that contribution of women to the society extends far beyond biological reproduction, they are also largely responsible for the preparation of human capital on which the dreams of being the world’s largest economy among other things rest,” the judgment said.The bench observed that homemakers are often the first teachers of children and play a central role in shaping social values, behaviour and relationships across generations..The Court passed the judgment on a plea challenging a 2024 ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It involved a road accident between two jeeps in which a woman was killed in 2001.The High Court had awarded a compensation of over ₹8 lakh to the family of the victim including her husband three children.The top court noted that the compensation claim had remained pending for more than two decades.It recorded that the case file was among thousands affected by a fire in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2011, resulting in delays relating to reconstruction of records before the appeal was finally decided in 2024.The Court treated the deceased homemaker’s contribution under the newly-created head of loss of domestic care at ₹30,000 per month and recalculated the compensation payable to the family.The compensation was ultimately enhanced to ₹62.77 lakh along with the interest awarded by the High Court..The Court, however, went beyond the facts of the case.It undertook an extensive examination of the economic and social value of unpaid domestic work performed by homemakers..It emphasised that their contribution remains largely invisible despite forming the foundation of society and the economy.“The ‘homemakers’, to put it directly, actually are the ‘nation builders’ and they ought to be recognised as such.” it noted.The Court also rejected the notion that homemakers are dependent on earning members of a family.“In our view, 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 said.Referring to national and international studies on unpaid care work, the Court noted that women’s unpaid caregiving work is estimated to contribute 15 - 17% of India’s GDP, yet it remains unpaid and unrecognised.Further, women spend significantly more time on unpaid domestic and caregiving work than men and that such labour continues to remain largely unrecognised in conventional economic measurements.Thus, compensation awarded to the families of deceased homemakers often fails to reflect the true value of their contribution..The ‘homemakers’, to put it directly, actually are the ‘nation builders’ and they ought to be recognised as such.Supreme Court .The Court said that the additional head of compensation for “loss of domestic care” was intended to address this inherent disadvantage faced by homemakers in motor accident compensation claims since their contribution is neither entirely economic nor entirely non-economic and is often undervalued when assessed solely through notional income.It clarified that the amount awarded under the head of loss of domestic care would be in addition to compensation under the conventional heads recognised in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and would be revised by 10 per cent cumulatively every three years.The Court further said that where a homemaker is also part of the workforce, compensation under the head of loss of domestic care would be in addition to the income proved before the tribunal or court..The Court also expressed concern over delays in motor accident compensation litigation. After examining more than a hundred motor accident cases decided by the Supreme Court, the bench noted that the average pendency before High Courts was approximately eight years and before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals was approximately six years.Such long delays defeat the objective of a beneficial legislation intended to provide just and fair compensation, the Court said..Women’s unpaid caregiving work is estimated to contribute 15 - 17% of India’s GDP, yet it remains unpaid and unrecognised.Supreme Court.Hence, it directed High Courts to prioritise older motor accident compensation appeals and consider whether additional benches dealing with such matters are required. It stressed that the summary procedure provided under the law be followed in letter and spirit."We have issued certain directions and we hope and trust that the Hon'ble Chief Justices of all the High Courts would monitor all these cases and that what is laid down under Section 169 of the Act, namely that it be a summary procedure, would be followed in letter and spirit," it noted.It also said claimants should, wherever applicable, file supporting documents relating to age, disability, income, medical expenses and attendant charges at the initial stage itself to reduce delays caused by repeated adjournments..The Court directed that a copy of its judgment be circulated to all High Courts and expressed hope that homemakers would in future be recognised as “nation builders”..[Read Judgment]
