‘Homemaker no unskilled worker, takes no leave’: Madhya Pradesh High Court raises payout for kin of woman killed in accident

“A homemaker renders multifarious services to the family, manages the entire household without fixed working hours and without any leave,” the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed, emphasising that the economic value of such labour “cannot be ignored while determining just compensation.”

Enhanced relief, directions

• With regard to the assessment of income, the claims tribunal assessed the deceased woman’s income at Rs 4,500 per month on the ground that no documentary evidence regarding her income was produced.
• However, the record reflects that the deceased, being a woman, was also a homemaker.
• The contribution made by a homemaker cannot be equated with that of an unskilled labourer.
• The court granted an additional compensation of Rs 1,15,729 to the claimant, along with interest at the same rate as fixed by the tribunal.
• It directed that the enhanced amount be paid within three months from receipt of the certified order.
• It further directed the appellant to deposit any differential court fees within one month, if applicable, before issuance of the certified copy.

Justice Hirdesh directed that the enhanced amount of Rs 5.4 lakh be paid within three months.

Tribunal’s assessment erroneous

• The appellant had challenged the tribunal’s February 7, 2019, award, arguing that the income of the deceased had been assessed on the lower side.
• It was submitted that the deceased was engaged in agricultural activities, animal husbandry, and milk selling, earning around Rs 15,000 per month, an aspect that was not adequately considered.
• However, the tribunal had pegged her income at Rs 4,500 per month due to lack of documentary proof.
• The high court found this approach legally untenable, noting that even in the absence of strict proof of income, the notional value of a homemaker’s services must be assessed realistically and not reduced to bare minimum assumptions.

Income reassessed at semi-skilled wage level

• Correcting the error, the court held that the deceased’s income ought to have been assessed at least at the level of a semi-skilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act, which stood at Rs 7,982 per month at the relevant time.
• The court emphasised that homemakers often contribute to multiple income-generating and household activities simultaneously, making their role economically significant despite the absence of formal wage records.

Breakdown of compensation

• Reassessing the award, the court recalculated compensation under well-established heads to arrive at a just figure.
• It first determined the annual income of the deceased at Rs 95,784 (Rs 7,982 per month), treating her at par with a semi-skilled worker.
• To this, 10 per cent was added towards future prospects, enhancing the annual income to Rs 1,05,362.
• After deducting one-half towards personal expenses, the annual dependency was computed at Rs 52,681.
• Applying the multiplier of 9, in accordance with settled principles, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs 4,74,129.
• In addition to the loss of dependency, the court granted compensation under conventional heads, awarding Rs 40,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 30,000 collectively towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.
• On a cumulative assessment, the total compensation was recalculated at Rs 5,44,129.

Counsel assails tribunal

• Advocate Sanjay Singh, counsel for the appellant–claimant, argued that the MACT had erred in assessing the deceased’s income at a meagre Rs 4,500 per month, contending that such a determination failed to reflect her actual economic contribution.
• It was submitted that the deceased was not only a homemaker but was also actively engaged in agricultural work, animal husbandry, and the sale of milk, earning nearly Rs 15,000 per month.
• The counsel further pointed out that the tribunal had placed undue emphasis on the absence of documentary proof, overlooking the practical realities of rural livelihoods where income is often unrecorded.
• It was argued that this approach resulted in a gross undervaluation of the deceased’s contribution to the family.
• Additionally, the appellant contended that the tribunal failed to award just and reasonable compensation under other conventional heads, such as loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Applying Supreme Court principles

• In recalculating compensation, the court applied settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
• According to the apex court, an addition of 10 per cent towards future prospects is in line with National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi.
• Adoption of multiplier based on age, as per Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation.
• Award of compensation under conventional heads, such as consortium and estate, following United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Satinder Kaur.
• After recalculations, the total compensation was enhanced to Rs 5,44,129 from Rs 4,28,400.

Recognition of invisible labour

• The judgment adds to a growing judicial trend recognising unpaid domestic work as an indispensable economic activity.
• By explicitly rejecting the classification of homemakers as unskilled workers, the court reaffirmed that compensation law must evolve to reflect the true value of household labour.
• The ruling underscores that the absence of formal employment or documentation cannot diminish the legal recognition of the vital, continuous, and multifaceted contributions made by homemakers.

Delhi High Court on homemakers

Last month, while dealing with a case involving grant of maintenance in a matrimonial dispute, the Delhi High Court had observed that the assumption that a non-earning spouse is “idle” reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contribution.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in a detailed judgment passed on February 16 allowed the wife’s plea and set aside the orders of the magistrate and the appellate court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) that had denied her interim maintenance.

On the argument on behalf of the husband that the wife cannot sit “idle” and claim maintenance, the court noted that a homemaker does not “sit idle” but does labour that allows the earning spouse to function effectively.

“A homemaker does not “sit idle”; she performs labour that enables the earning spouse to function effectively. To disregard this contribution while adjudicating claims of maintenance would be unrealistic and unjust,” the order read.