5 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Aug 19, 2026 07:05 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court has held that a woman does not stop being a homemaker because she is educated or has worked before can be treated as a homemaker even if she has a degree or professional experience and enhanced an accident victim’s compensation from Rs 4.55 lakh to Rs 6.52 lakh. It said that any man or woman who “tirelessly strives, showers unconditional love, sacrifices personal comfort at times and ultimately becomes a pillar for happy and stable family” is a “homemaker”.
Justice Chillakur Sumalatha was hearing two connected appeals involving the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and the woman who had sought enhancement of compensation following a motor accident. The appeals arose from a March 13, 2018 award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, which had granted her Rs 4,55,243 with 8 per cent annual interest.
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. To consider a women as ‘HOMEMAKER’ it is not necessary to project or establish that she is illiterate or she stays at home 24×7 or that she attends only household work and nothing more,” the court said on August 4.
Story continues below this ad
“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. These qualities are illustrative but not exhaustive. 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,” it added.
Justice Chillakur Sumalatha held that homemaking can be recognised even when a woman is educated, professionally qualified or has worked before. (Image enhanced using AI)
Court rejects qualification-based distinction
The matter is related to an accident in October 2013 in which the woman, then 25-year-old, suffered serious injuries and permanent physical disability. She had a Master’s Degree in Biotechnology and had worked as a guest lecturer from August 2012 to March 2013, earning Rs 35,000 per month.
The tribunal had declined to award her compensation towards loss of future earnings because there was no evidence that she was working when the accident occurred. KSRTC defended that finding before the high court.
Her counsel informed the court that even if she was not working as a lecturer at the time of the accident, the permanent disability established in her case justified compensation by considering the services she rendered to her family as a homemaker. KSRTC opposed this, arguing that since she had a postgraduate qualification, she could not be regarded as a homemaker. However, the court rejected this.
Story continues below this ad
Rs 8,000 notional income
The court noted that, for the relevant period, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority was taking Rs 8,000 per month as the notional income of persons who could not produce substantive proof of occupation and earnings. It adopted Rs 8,000 as the claimant’s notional monthly income.
The medical records showed that she had suffered a comminuted fracture of the talus with dislocation of the ankle joint and a fracture of the medial malleolus (inner ankle bone). The tribunal had assessed her whole-body disability at 10 per cent, a finding the high court did not disturb.
Applying a multiplier of 18, the court calculated the financial loss arising from her permanent disability at Rs 1,72,800. The court said that, considering the nature of her injuries, she could have required at least three months of bed rest. As a homemaker, she would have been unable to render services to her family during that period. It calculated this loss at Rs 24,000. The two components together came to Rs 1,96,800 in additional compensation.
Medical insurance reimbursement not a ‘double benefit’
Rejecting KSRTC’s claim that medical expenses reimbursed by ICICI Lombard should be deducted from the compensation, the court said that medical insurance is a contractual benefit arising from premiums paid, while motor accident compensation is a statutory entitlement. Therefore, reimbursement by an insurer does not reduce the liability to pay accident compensation.
Story continues below this ad
The court dismissed KSRTC’s appeal and partly allowing the claimant’s appeal and enhanced the compensation by Rs 1,96,800 with 6 per cent annual interest, subject to the 114-day exclusion ordered by the court. KSRTC was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks, after which the claimant could withdraw it.
Justice Chillakur Sumalatha held that homemaking can be recognised even when a woman is educated, professionally qualified or has worked before. (Image enhanced using AI)