Homemaker's Deemed Income Can't Be Less Than Minimum Wages Notified For Daily Wager : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, while deciding a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, observed that it is difficult to assess a contribution made by the homemaker in monetary terms. The Division bench of Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Vishwanathan termed such contribution 'high order and invaluable.' Further, it also stated that the role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family...
The Supreme Court, while deciding a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, observed that it is difficult to assess a contribution made by the homemaker in monetary terms. The Division bench of Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Vishwanathan termed such contribution 'high order and invaluable.' Further, it also stated that the role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member who brings in money for the family.
“It goes without saying that the role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family. The activities performed by a home-maker, if counted one by one, there will hardly be any doubt that the contribution of a home-maker is of a high order and invaluable.”
The Top Court made these observations while deciding an appeal preferred by the husband and children of a fifty-year-old woman who died in a car accident. Initially, the appellants had approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Eventually, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- only to the appellants as compensation. Dissatisfied with this amount, the appellant went on appeal before the High Court. However, the same was dismissed. Thus, the present appeal.
The Court, at the outset, recorded that the impugned order was full of factual as well as legal errors. Reasoning this, the Court cited three issues. Firstly, the deceased was about 50 years old and not 55 years old (as observed by the High Court). Secondly, the High Court observed that appellants are not dependent on the deceased. The Apex Court described this as a patent error. Lastly, the deceased was traveling in a car and not in the bus (as observed by the High Court).
On the aspect of the deceased being employed, the Court, in no uncertain terms, noted that her deemed monthly income could not be anything less than given under the Minimum Wages Act.
“Assuming that the deceased was not employed, it cannot be disputed that she was a homemaker. Her direct and indirect monthly income, in no circumstances, could be less than the wages admissible to a daily wager in the State of Uttarakhand under the Minimum Wages Act.”
In view of these facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that the deceased's monthly income could not be less than around Rs.4,000/-. Nevertheless, while granting compensation, the Court took into account, inter alia, the fact that the concerned vehicle was not insured. Considering all the relevant factors, the Court granted Rs.6,00,000/- as a lump sum compensation.
“However, instead of calculating the compensation under different heads, and also keeping in mind the fact that the appellants and the respondents are closely related, and the delinquent vehicle was not insured, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal in part to the extent that the appellants are granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs).”
Before parting, the Court cautioned the respondents to pay the balance amount within six weeks, failing which the Tribunal shall award the required interest.
“Since the respondents have already paid the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the appellants, the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- shall be paid by them within six weeks, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest as awarded by the Tribunal.,” the Court ordered.
Case Title: ARVIND KUMAR PANDEY vs. GIRISH PANDEY., CIVIL APPEAL No.2512 OF 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 152