The Karnataka High Court recently held that a woman who renders services to her family is to be regarded as a homemaker irrespective of her educational qualifications or work status [Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v Pampapal]..Justice Chillakur Sumalatha was dealing with a motor accident case of a biotechnology post-graduate, who suffered injuries in an accident involving a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus.The victim, who said she had been working as a lecturer, sought enhanced compensation on account of loss of earnings due to the accident. The same had earlier been denied by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Bengaluru.In response, KSRTC argued that she was rightly denied compensation for loss of future earnings as there was no proof of her working status at the time of accident. It also submitted that considering her higher educational qualification, she cannot be regarded as a homemaker.However, the Court disagreed."Every woman who renders services to her family members at home is liable to be regarded as a 'HOMEMAKER' irrespective of the fact that such woman holds higher qualification either it is a Degree or Post Graduation or a Doctorate. In the humble opinion of this Court, even a working woman or a professional can be considered to be a home maker so long as such woman renders services at home taking care and looking after the welfare of the family members," the order said.The Court added that it was not necessary in such cases to project or establish that a woman is illiterate or she stays at home 24x7 or that she attends only household work. "Any individual who tirelessly strives, showers unconditional love, sacrifices personal comfort at times and ultimately becomes a pillar for happy and stable family is a homemaker," it said..The Court went on to hold that the term homemaker is gender-neutral and could include a bread winner as well."The word 'HOMEMAKER' is gender-neutral. A homemaker thus can be male or female. Also covers working person or bread winner or wage earner. Therefore this Court is of the view that the claimant in this case can well be considered to be a home maker."Considering that the accident had taken place in 2013, the Court ordered that her notional income be taken as ₹8,000 per month in absence of substantive proof with regard to her occupation. Taking note of her injuries, the Court said she would have been on bed rest for at least three months during which she might not have rendered any service to family."Therefore, the financial loss due to inability of the claimant to perform her duties at her family for those 3 months comes to Rs.24,000/- (8,000 x3). Hence the total sum which the claimant is entitled to receive in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.1,96,800 (1,72,800 + 24,000)," it ordered..Advocate HR Renuka appeared for KSRTC. The claimant was represented by advocate Gopalkrishna N. .[Read Order]
