The Delhi High Court has held that advanced age alone cannot be a ground to deny compensation for the unpaid household and caregiving services rendered by a homemaker in motor accident cases. 

Justice Anish Dayal observed that older women continue to render unpaid domestic and caregiving services, including looking after grandchildren, and that their contributions are often overlooked merely because they do not receive monetary remuneration.

“The absence of a monetary consideration cannot operate to the advantage of the tortfeasor or diminish the compensation otherwise payable to the injured claimant,” the Court observed.

It made these observations while enhancing the compensation awarded to Ganga Devi, a 74-year-old woman who suffered 74% permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs after a bus ran over her legs in February 2019. The injuries resulted in the amputation of her left leg below the knee and all toes of her right leg.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded her compensation of Rs. 14.42 lakh but declined to grant any amount towards loss of income or future income, reasoning that she was an elderly homemaker who had never been employed.

Setting aside the said order, Justice Dayal held that the law does not prescribe an age limit for recognising the economic value of gratuitous services, unpaid care and domestic work while determining compensation.

“To read an age-based limitation into the principle governing compensation for such services would be contrary to the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the fundamental requirement of awarding just and reasonable compensation,” the Court said.

It also cautioned against assumptions that a person ceases to contribute to the household merely because of advanced age, observing that such an approach risks perpetuating prejudice against older persons, commonly described as ageism.

The Court assessed Ganga Devi's notional monthly income at Rs. 16,962, corresponding to the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled worker in Delhi at the time of the accident.

It noted that Devi lived in a joint family and was involved in looking after her grandchildren and that her disability consequently affected not only her mobility but also her ability to perform household tasks and render services to family members.

“In these circumstances, while the physical disability has been certified at 74% in relation to both lower limbs, considering the claimant's advanced age, and the impact of the disability on her ability to undertake household activities and render gratuitous services to her family, the functional disability affecting her earning capacity is assessed at 50,” the Court said.

It added that the assessment of compensation should not be founded upon stereotypes or assumptions that a person ceases to contribute merely by reason of having attained an advanced age.

The Court observed that it must remain cognizant of the prejudice that may operate against older persons and guard against such considerations influencing the assessment of compensation.

“The data referred to hereinabove further demonstrates that women beyond the age of 70 years continue to render gratuitous services to their families, including household and caregiving service,” the Court said.

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, and having regard to the nature of the services rendered by the claimant as a homemaker and taking into consideration that she is stated to taking care of the grandchildren, it would be appropriate to assess her notional income on the basis of the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled worker in Delhi as prevailing on the date of the accident, i.e., Rs. 16,962/- per month as she was resident of Delhi as per her Aadhar card,” it held.

It further observed that the absence of evidence of a paid attendant does not, by itself, disentitle an injured Devi to compensation for assistance required in daily life. It added that such assistance may be provided by family members without payment, but that does not make the services valueless.

Accordingly, the Court enhanced the compensation towards attendant charges from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 5 lakh. It also awarded Rs. 50,886 towards loss of income for three months of treatment and hospitalisation, and Rs. 5,08,860 towards loss of future income, applying a multiplier of five and functional disability of 50%.

It increased the compensation for pain and suffering from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 1 lakh and awarded Rs. 1.30 lakh towards the cost of a further prosthetic limb and Rs. 75,000 towards its maintenance, subject to the conditions.

The Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 14.42 lakh to Rs. 20,79,307,, while retaining the interest rate of 7.5% per annum.