Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
UMA RANI THR SPA PANKAJ THAKUR .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Prerna Singh & Ms. Sugandha Agarwal, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed assailing impugned judgment and award dated 13th April 2022 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT/Tribunal’], South-West, Dwarka Courts in MACT NO. 1135/2016, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT at Rs. 2,06,860/- inclusive of interest at the rate of 9% per annum upto the date of compliance. The Accident
2. The accident occurred on 2nd October 2012 at about 6:30 am when appellant/Uma Rani was sitting at Dashrathpuri Bus Stand, Palam Road, New Delhi and her husband, Sh. Ram Singh was standing along with others MAC.APP. 297/2022 2/31 waiting to go to a satsang. A Santro Car bearing registration no. DL-2CW- 0634 (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’) driven by respondent no.1/Simranjeet Singh owned by respondent no.2/ Kamaljit Kaur hit them. Her husband, Sh. Ram Singh, sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to the said injuries on the same day. On the other hand, appellant/Uma Rani sustained serious injuries on her left leg along with other parts of the body.
3. Initially, no Disability Certificate was placed before the MACT, but by order dated 09th January 2015, MACT sought opinion of the Medical Board and thereafter, a Disability Certificate was requisitioned from the office of Medical Superintendent, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, which was provided on 04th February 2015.
4. As per the Disability Certificate, appellant/Uma Rani, aged 68 years was ‘a case of post-traumatic below knee amputation with operated united fracture shaft of femur left side with 63% permanent physical disability in relation to left lower limb’ and the disability was permanent in nature.
5. Despite the Certificate, disability was not accounted for by the MACT in computing the compensation.
6. Considering that she was a home-maker, her notional income was taken at minimum wages of an unskilled worker at Rs.7,254/- and loss of income of only one month was granted when she was in the hospital.
7. Ms. Prerna Singh, counsel for appellant/Uma Rani, assails the award on the ground that minimum wages of a skilled worker at Rs. MAC.APP. 297/2022 3/31 8,814/- should have been considered while computing loss of income and loss of future earning.
8. It was submitted that a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- was granted towards medical expenses, despite incurring medical expenditure of Rs. 3,59,000/- out of which Rs.3,02,604/- was reimbursed under the Central Government Health Scheme (‘CGHS’).
9. Further, compensation on account of special diet, conveyance, pain & suffering and mental & physical shock were also challenged on grounds of being highly inadequate.
10. No amount was awarded towards nursing/attendant charges and cost of artificial limb and maintenance.
11. Per contra, counsel for respondents, submitted that appellant/Uma Rani was a pensioner and a beneficiary under CGHS, therefore, she had already received reimbursement on account of medical expenses.
12. Further, loss of income claimed on account of medical treatment was disputed on the ground that appellant/Uma Rani had been visiting the hospital only for follow ups and therefore, loss of income should not be awarded. Analysis
13. Appellant/Uma Devi was injured in an accident, which occurred on 2nd October 2012 and was 68 years at that time. Ms. Singh, counsel for appellant, stated that she is 82 years of age now and her husband had also passed away in the said accident. Components of compensation as MAC.APP. 297/2022 4/31 awarded by MACT and what has been claimed in the appeal are tabulated as under: Heads Awarded by Ld. Tribunal Claimed in Appeal Expenditure on treatment Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 56,396/- Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Cost of nursing/attendant NIL Rs. 10,00,000/- Expenditure on special diet Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Loss of income Rs. 7,254/- Rs. 8814/-x 6 months Rs. 52,884/- Loss of future earning capacity NIL Rs. 3,96,630/- Cost of artificial limb & maintenance NIL Rs. 2,20,000/- Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Loss of amenities of life NIL Rs. 2,00,000/- Disfigurement NIL Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of marriage prospect NA NA Total Compensation Rs. 1,12,254/- Rs. 23,75,910/- Interest Awarded 9% 9%
14. In order to examine these issues, it would be apposite to extract the reasoning given by MACT for awarding compensation, which is extracted as under: MAC.APP. 297/2022 5/31
30. The Court also noted decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deepika 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 828, where the Court held as under: “10. The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act gives a value to the compensation payable in respect of those who had no income prior to the accident and for a spouse, it says that one-third of the income of the earning surviving spouse should be the value. Exploration on the internet shows that there have been efforts to understand the value of a homemaker's unpaid labour by different methods. One is, the opportunity cost which evaluates her wages by assessing what she would have earned had she not remained at home viz. the opportunity lost. The second is, the partnership method which assumes that a marriage is an equal economic partnership and in this method, the homemaker's salary is valued at half her husband's salary. Yet another method is to evaluate homemaking by determining how much it would cost to replace the homemaker with paid workers. This is called the replacement method.”
31. Thereafter, certain observations were made by the Court which are extracted as under:
32. Further, on the issue of applying future prospects, the Court held as under: “40. When it comes to the second category of cases, relating to notional income for non-earning victims, it is my opinion that the above principle applies with equal vigour, particularly with respect to homemakers. Once notional income is determined, the effects of inflation would equally apply. Further, no one would ever say that the improvements in skills that come with experience do not take place in the domain of work within the household. It is worth noting that, although not extensively discussed, this Court has been granting future prospects even in cases pertaining to notional income, as has been highlighted by my learned Brother, Surya Kant, J., in his opinion (Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 15 SCC 654: (2019) 1 SCC (Civ) 293: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 864]; Sunita Tokas v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Sunita Tokas v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 688: (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 436].” MAC.APP. 297/2022 14/31
33. Lastly, the Supreme Court culled out the observations and summarized them as under: “41. Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation which can be summarised as follows:
41.1. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.
41.2. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.
41.3. Various methods can be employed by the court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
41.4. The court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally.
41.5. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation.” MAC.APP. 297/2022 15/31
34. Reliance may also be placed upon a decision by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalbir Singh 2025:DHC:917, where this Court was considering the issue of notional income of a deceased housewife, who was rendering gratuitous service to the family. The Court traversed through various decisions inter alia Lata Wadhwa (supra), Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra), Kirti (supra), Rajendra Singh (supra) and the decision in Arvind Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Girish Pandey, Civil Appeal No. 2515/2024 decided on 16th February 2024, which noted that “direct or indirect income of a homemaker cannot be less than the prevailing minimum wages of the State at the time of the accident”.
35. The Court, therefore, held that there was extensive contribution of the deceased in the household and with there being no evidence, regarding educational qualifications, minimum wages of a skilled worker were taken and future prospects were applied.
36. Reliance may also be placed upon decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh 2012:DHC:615 where the Court was ascertaining the value of services rendered by a homemaker to calculate loss of dependency. Reliance was placed upon decisions in Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra), Deepika (supra), Lata Wadhwa (supra) and noted as under:
37. While, domestic unpaid work performed by housewives has not been defined, United Nations (‘UN’) Women defines unpaid care work as, “daily labour that keeps households, families, and communities running – work that is mostly done by women and girls without pay. It includes raising children, caring for older or sick relatives, and supporting a person with disabilities, as well as cleaning, cooking, washing and collecting water or fuel. It also includes organizing schedules and anticipating household or community needs – often called the “mental load”, unpaid care work is the invisible force that holds households and communities together.”
38. The International Labour Organization (‘ILO’), ILOSTAT, noted that, if unpaid domestic and care work is given an equivalent monetary MAC.APP. 297/2022 17/31 value, it would exceed 40% of GDP in some countries. In a report titled, ‘Participation of Women in Specified Activities along with Domestic Duties’ published in September 2014 by National Sample Survey Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, females engaged in domestic work as a primary status were categorized in codes 92 (attended domestic duties only) and 93 (attended domestic duties and were also engaged in free collection of goods, sewing, tailoring, weaving, etc. for household use), thereby, rendering them as not forming a part of the labour force.
39. Another staggering statistic which points out the difficulty in estimating the pecuniary nature of the work performed by women while engaging in unpaid labour was noted in a Policy Brief published in Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (‘ICRIER’), titled, “The Care Economy: A Case for Expanding the Role of the Private Sector,” by Shabana Mitra & Anjhana Ramesh in 2025, which noted as under: “In India, women’s unpaid labour amounts to a staggering 22.[7] lakh crore rupees (Rural: Rs 14.[7] lakh crore and Urban: Rs 8.0 lakh crore). This is about 7.5% of India’s GDP. If the time spent on unpaid care work across the world was valued based on an hourly minimum wage, it would amount to 9% of global the GDP, which corresponds to USD 11 trillion…”
40. In view of the above discussion, this Court is conscious that domestic work performed by a housewife goes unrecognized in terms of monetizing or calculating her income. While there is no straitjacket MAC.APP. 297/2022 18/31 formula, Courts have emphasized the need for assessing the position held by a housewife in her family and the duties performed by her in order to assess the loss suffered by the family. Courts must exercise a balance while taking into account the unsaid roles performed by her, without deviating from the principles of just compensation prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’).
41. The discussion on calculating notional income of a homemaker and the contribution made by her in the household has recently been recognized by the Supreme Court in its decision in Shishu Pal v. Surjeet, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1114, rendered on 11th June 2026 (after the present matter had been finally heard and reserved for judgment), the Supreme Court considered additional compensation to be granted in cases involving the death of a homemaker. The issue before the Court was regarding quantification/monetization of a homemaker’s contribution to her family, in particular, and therefore, to the nation, at large. The Supreme Court rendered a detailed opinion on inadequacy in assessing the contribution of a homemaker and its translation into compensation for the claimants. Relevant observations of the Court are extracted as under for ease of reference:
42. The Supreme Court introduced a new head of compensation being, ‘loss of domestic care’, providing that in cases where the homemaker has no income in monetary terms, compensation under this head would be treated as the monthly income. This additional head of ‘loss of domestic MAC.APP. 297/2022 21/31 care’ is distinct from ‘loss of consortium’ and is to be considered as a composite amount comprising three major heads:
(i) homemaker’s contribution towards smooth functioning of the household;
(ii) loss of maternal support for children;
(iii) loss of spousal support; or support for parents of the deceased.
It was stated that this composite sum of Rs. 30,000/- shall be granted “provided that all three of these heads are met in the given case” and that the said amount shall be revised by 10% cumulative, every three years.
43. However, in view of the fact that it has not been clarified by the Supreme Court whether the above finding shall be applicable in both death and injury cases and considering that the claimant in the present case had suffered injuries, the above decision shall not be strictly applicable in the case at hand, but principles enunciated inform the decision of this Court as discussed below. The Present Case
44. Since no documentary proof of matriculation or graduation has been filed by appellant/Uma Rani, it would be apposite to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Savita & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026:DHC:3626, where the Court had culled out the principles for assessment of minimum wages in scenarios where there is no documentary proof of income. It was observed that minimum wages should be used as a yardstick and the Courts should not be constrained to consider wages from the lowest tier. MAC.APP. 297/2022 22/31
45. In any case, there is no hard and fast rule about adopting notional income for a homemaker, considering that the value of services provided by her to a household cannot be quantified, therefore, minimum wages of a skilled worker at Rs.8,814/- ought to be taken, applying the principles enunciated in decisions discussed in paragraph nos.24-36 above, but taking into account the higher standard propounded by the Supreme Court Shishu Pal (supra), notwithstanding it is an injury case, the Court is inclined to consider the notional income (including elements of loss of domestic care) at Rs.10,000/-. This would accommodate some elements of what has been positively asserted by the Supreme Court on contribution of a homemaker to a household.
46. Appellant/Uma Rani suffered permanent disability of 63% in relation to left lower limb and consequently had to undergo an amputation one month after the accident as noted in the discharge summary of Trauma Centre (AIIMS) dated 01st January 2013; it seems likely that appellant/Uma Rani was undergoing treatment, from October 2012 till January 2013, which would involve being in the hospital for a minimum of four months. Considering that she would have required further two months to recover, this Court is inclined to consider loss of income for six months.
47. As far as the awarding future prospects, considering that appellant/Uma Rani was 68 years of age at time of accident, in view of the principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 where Supreme Court categorically noted that future MAC.APP. 297/2022 23/31 prospects are not granted above 60 years of age, accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant future prospects.
48. An appropriate multiplier of ‘5’ shall be taken, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
49. As regards determining her functional disability, reliance may be placed upon the decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, where the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal must assess not merely the extent of permanent disability but its actual impact on the claimant’s earning capacity, which may differ from the medical percentage of disability. This requires evaluating the claimant’s pre-accident vocation, the functions affected, and whether livelihood can still be earned despite the disability. The Court emphasised that disability and loss of earning capacity are distinct concepts, except in cases where evidence shows they coincide. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
50. Therefore, considering that appellant/Uma Rani had suffered 63% permanent physical disability in relation to left lower limb and had also undergone a below knee amputation, this Court is inclined to consider her functional disability at 50%.
51. It was further stated by Ms. Singh, counsel for appellant/Uma Rani that a prosthesis was taken at Rs.23,200/-, for which a claim had been made but was not settled, therefore, she has not been provided any amount on that account.
52. Considering the circumstances, that no proof has been provided for purchase of prosthetic but she is admittedly a care of amputation, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted on account of artificial limb and its maintenance in order to give her some recompense for expenses. Non-pecuniary losses
53. As regards non-pecuniary losses, reliance may be placed on the decision of Supreme Court in K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385, where the Supreme Court observed that MAC.APP. 297/2022 26/31 “pain and suffering” cannot be captured by any fixed definition, drawing on legal, medical, and philosophical sources to emphasise its deeply subjective and life-altering nature. It recognised that translating such profound human loss into money is an inherently artificial exercise, yet courts must ensure fairness, consistency, and sensitivity to the victim’s lifelong deprivation. The Court stressed that in cases of severe or 100% disability, compensation must meaningfully reflect the permanent rupture in the victim’s physical, emotional, and existential well-being. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under: “13. While acknowledging that ‘pain and suffering’, as a concept escapes definition, we may only refer to certain authorities, scholarly as also judicial wherein attempts have been made to set down the contours thereof. 13.[1] The entry recording the term ‘pain and suffering’ in P. Ramanatha Iyer's Advanced Law Lexicon reads as under:— “Pain and suffering. The term ‘Pain and suffering’ mean physical discomfort and distress and include mental and emotional trauma for which damages can be recovered in an accident claim. This expression has become almost a term of art, used without making fine distinction between pain and suffering. Pain and suffering which a person undergoes cannot be measured in terms of money by any mathematical calculation. Hence the Court awards a sum which is in the nature of a conventional award [Mediana, The, [1900] A.C. 113, 116]” … MAC.APP. 297/2022 27/31 13.[5] In determining non-pecuniary damages, the artificial nature of computing compensation has been highlighted in Heil v. Rankin, as referred to in Attorney General of St. Helenav. AB as under:—
14. In respect of ‘pain and suffering’ in cases where disability suffered is at 100%, we may notice a few decisions of this Court:— 14.[1] In R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. It was observed:
54. Therefore, compensation towards mental and physical shock and pain and suffering is increased to Rs.2,00,000/- each.
55. Accordingly, the revised computation is as under: Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court PECUNIARY LOSS
1 Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 56,396/- 2 Expenditure on conveyance (B) Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 25,000/- 3 Expenditure on special diet (C) Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 4 Income of injured (D) Rs.7,254/- Rs. 10,000/- MAC.APP. 297/2022 30/31
5 Multiplier (E) Nil 5 6 Functional disability (F) Nil 50% 7 Loss of income (G) [Rs.10,000/- x 6] Rs. 7,254/- Rs. 60,000/- 8 Loss of future income/future earnings [(D x 12 x E x F] = (H) Nil Rs. 3,00,000/- NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
56. For the aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by Rs.8,39,142/- [“enhanced amount”].
57. Enhanced amount along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT within a period of four weeks. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be released to appellant/Uma Rani from the deposit of enhanced amount within a period of two weeks thereafter. Remaining enhanced amount, along with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 25,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and so on, in succession as maybe calculated. Interest accruing on said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Savings Bank Account of appellant/Uma Rani. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released MAC.APP. 297/2022 31/31 to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due verification.
58. Original compensation awarded by the MACT shall continue to be released as per scheme of the MACT.
59. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
60. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
61. Copy of this judgement be sent to concerned MACT.
62. Copy of this judgement shall also be sent to concerned bank.
63. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL (JUDGE) JULY 1, 2026/mk/sp