Homemaker's Work Would Command High Pay If Outsourced: P&H High Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation To ₹1.18 Crore

Emphasising that the work of a housewife extends far beyond mere caretaking and includes a wide range of services that would command substantial remuneration if outsourced, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident claim, raising it from ₹58.22 lakh to ₹1.18 crore.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "The work of a housewife transcends caretaking embracing preparation of meals for the entire family; procurement of groceries and household supplies; cleaning and maintenance of the house and surroundings; financial planning and budget management; child care and education; tending to elderly dependents; coordinating repairs and homebased healthcare etc."

These services, if procured in the open market, would command substantial remuneration, underscoring the integral role played by a homemaker in family stability, said the judge.

The appeal was filed against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa in 2016, in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of ₹58.22 lakh with interest at 9% per annum to the claimant, Shilpa Jain (since deceased), who had suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 8 October 2014.

Counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate and did not reflect the true economic and non-economic losses suffered by the claimant. It was urged that the award be enhanced in line with the latest judgments of the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, the insurance company argued that the compensation was already on the higher side and, in particular, challenged the amount awarded towards future medical expenses as arbitrary and excessive. It was also pointed out that the insurer had filed a separate appeal seeking reduction of the compensation.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the deceased claimant was a homemaker and held that the Tribunal had erred in assessing her notional income on the lower side, contrary to settled law. Relying on earlier judgments, including Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar and Jasbir Singh v. Surjit Singh, the Court reiterated that a housewife cannot be equated merely with a skilled worker, given her multifarious role as a home manager.

Taking into account inflation, rising cost of living, and evolving judicial recognition of the economic value of homemakers, the Court reassessed the notional monthly income of the deceased at ₹15,000.

The Court also found that the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads such as pain and suffering was inadequate. It noted that the claimant had suffered severe head injuries with multiple haemorrhagic contusions, remained on ventilatory support, and was in a complete vegetative state from the date of the accident until her death on 21 November 2017.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi (2024), the Court awarded ₹15 lakh towards pain and suffering, recognising the immense physical and mental agony endured by the claimant.

The Court further enhanced compensation towards attendant charges to ₹8 lakh, holding that the claimant, being in a vegetative state, would have required continuous assistance.

Rejecting the insurer's argument against future medical expenses, the Court relied on Dhannalal @ Dhanraj v. Nasir Khan (2025), holding that medical and attendant expenses incurred during the lifetime of an injured victim in a vegetative state form part of the estate and are recoverable by legal heirs even after the victim's death.

The Court also added 40% towards future prospects, enhanced amounts under transportation, loss of amenities of life, and special diet, and upheld the award for future medical expenses.

In total, the compensation was recalculated at ₹1,18,20,000, resulting in an enhancement of ₹59,98,000 over and above the Tribunal's award.

The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, the Court said. The insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within two months.

Mr. M.K. Mittal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Ms. Farheen Bajwa, Advocate for Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.5.

Title: SHILPA JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. INDERJEET JAIN AND ORS.

Click here to read order