"Compensation Can't Be Viewed Through Patriarchal Lens": Delhi High Court Upholds Husband's Claim Over Wife's Death In Accident
The Delhi High Court has held that an earning husband can claim compensation under the head of loss of dependency for the death of his wife in a motor accident and that such a claim cannot be rejected on the assumption that a husband, merely because he is earning, is not financially dependent on his wife.
“An 'earning husband' is not necessarily “not dependent” upon the income of the deceased wife…compensation resulting from an accident cannot be seen through a prism of whether society is a patriarchal setup...Where there is a 'joint income' sustaining the household, the dependency of the surviving spouse extends to the extent of the loss occasioned by the contribution of the deceased spouse to the 'corpus of the household', whether through pecuniary earnings or through non-pecuniary contributions in the form of gratuitous services rendered in running the household,” Justice Anish Dayal held.
The single bench added that compensation in motor accident cases cannot be viewed through the prism of a patriarchal social steup and that courts should not presume that an earning wife's contribution to the family was unnecessary.
“If deceased in a motor accident was an 'earning member' of the family, whether husband or wife, it is evident that such income constituted a contribution to the family corpus. For the Tribunal or the Court to deny the same on an assumption that such contribution was unnecessary merely because another member of the family was also earning would amount to an erroneous assessment,” the Court said.
The Court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award of over ₹57.5 lakh in favour of a man whose wife died in a road accident.
The insurer contended that since the claimant-husband was himself an earning member, he could not be treated as financially dependent upon his deceased wife and was therefore not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The company further argued that the husband would only be entitled to compensation towards loss of estate.
The Respondent-husband however argued that his wife substantially contributed towards repayment of home loans and other household liabilities. He also relied on Malakappa and Others v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Anr (2025) where the Supreme Court recognised that even a husband may be financially or partially dependent upon his wife.
Agreeing with the claimant, the Court said it has to take note of evolving societal structures and changing realities, which are no longer anchored in the traditional past.
It further noted that the insurer had neither challenged the issue of dependency before the Tribunal nor produced any evidence to establish that the husband was not dependent on the deceased. It observed that the issue had been raised for the first time in appeal and therefore could not be sustained.
The Court also observed that if the deceased is not an earning member, the contribution made through unpaid domestic work cannot be ignored.
“Any non-earning member forming part of the 'head unit' of the family, whether husband or wife, would ordinarily contribute through gratuitous services rendered for the upkeep of the family. Yet again, such a nonearning member, could either be a 'non-earning husband' or a 'nonearning wife',” the Court said.
As such, the Court upheld the MACT's award in favour of the claimant-husband.
Appearance: Mr. Kanwar Kochar, Advocate for Appellant; Mr. Rajat Wadhwa and Mr. Honey Jain, Advocates for Respondent No.1
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co Ltd V. Vinay Jain
Case no.: MAC.APP. 509/2024