Motor Accident Claim | Salaried Deceased's Contribution As Homemaker Can't Be Added To Income Unless Evidence Is Adduced: Kerala High Court
K. Salma Jennath
10 Jun 2026 5:00 PM IST
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, held that in motor accident claims cases, contribution of a deceased as a homemaker, who also was a salaried employee, cannot be added to monthly income unless proved by evidence.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen was considering an appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
The deceased was a salaried employee working as a sweeper in a school. She was walking on the public road when a motorcycle driven in a rash and negligent manner hit her. She succumbed to her injuries two days later. The husband and three children of the deceased approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 13,49,757 with 9% interest. Aggrieved, they approached the High Court.
"In the present case, the deceased was a salaried employee in a school. Though the appellants have claimed an additional sum of ₹15,000/- per month towards the services rendered by her as a homemaker, no oral evidence was adduced by them in support of the said claim. Though the appellants are four in number, none of them mounted the witness box to explain or substantiate the contribution made by the deceased to the family as a homemaker. The appellants do not have a case that the deceased was not continuing in service at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, while fixing her income, took ₹10,788/- per month, being the salary received by the deceased as reflected in Ext.A8 salary certificate. I do not find any error or illegality in the fixation of the income of the deceased by the tribunal and hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same"
The appellants contended that the Tribunal did not consider the claim for the income of the deceased's contribution as a homemaker. They said that the Tribunal ought to have added Rs. 15,000 to the monthly salary income of Rs. 10,788 proved through salary certificate. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision in Sunita v. Vinod Singh [2025 (2) KHC 635].
The insurer opposed the argument and submitted that no separate amount could be added towards the deceased's contribution as a homemaker when she was a salaried employee.
The Court was of the view that the afore Supreme Court judgment would not be applicable in the present case since therein the deceased was a recipient of family pension and a homemaker but here, the deceased is a salaried employee.
The Court also noted that no evidence has been adduced to support the claim. Thus, the Court refused to interfere with the income fixed by the Tribunal based on the deceased's salary certificate.
The appellants also challenged the sum of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 60,000 awarded towards loss of consortium and towards loss of love and affection respectively.
The Court relied on the decision of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and found that each of the claimants are entitled to Rs. 40,000 each and further enhancement of 10% in a span of 3 years under 'loss of consortium'. It awarded an additional amount of Rs. 1,78,600.
The Court, relying of New India Assurance Company v. Somwati and Ors., deleted the sum granted towards loss of love and affection since amount was already awarded towards loss of consortium.
It rejected the claim of enhancement of compensation under the other heads stating that award made by the Tribunal appeared to be just and reasonable.
Thus, the Court allowed the appeal in part and enhanced the compensation by Rs. 1,18,600 with 8% annual interest.
Case No: MACA No. 666 of 2020
Case Title: Thomas Poulose and Ors. v. Albin Mathew @ Anto and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 321
Counsel for the appellants: Susanth Shaji, V.V. Shaji, Varghese C. Kuriakose
Counsel for the respondents: Lal K. Joseph, Sanjay Sellen, Sonia Shibu
