The determination of compensation for a homemaker and the methods for fixing notional income, highlighting the importance of recognizing the work and sacrifices of homemakers.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--The present appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 04.06.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACP No. 80/2017 inter alia awarding Rs.17,92,224/- as compensation to the Claimant/husband of the deceased on the account of loss of dependency.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation on the above head. He submits that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the deceased, who was admittedly a housewife/home-maker, at the minimum wages as notified by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the relevant period for a skilled worker, that is, Rs.8,890/- per month.

3. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh and Others v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 256, he submits that the notional income of the deceased should have been taken at Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of her death.

4. He further submits that, in any case, as the educational qualification of the deceased was not proved on record and, admittedly, as she was only a homemaker, minimum wages as applicable to an unskilled category of worker should have been taken into account, that is, Rs.7,214/- per month.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co Ltd. v. Chitra & Ors., NC:2023:DHC:4838, submits that no error can be found in the Award passed by the learned Tribunal in having adopted the minimum wages for a skilled category of worker for determining the loss of dependency of the respondent no.1 on the deceased. He submits that taking into account the general expenses that are to be incurred by a household for the household work, in fact, the amount awarded is on the lesser side.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The contribution made by a homemaker and the services rendered by a woman in a household cannot be undermined or undervalued. She is the support system behind any household. Contribution of the homemaker was highlighted by the Supreme Court in Kirit & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 166, with Justice N.V. Ramana in his Supplementing opinion, observing and holding as under:

"20. One category of non-earning victims that courts are often called upon to calculate the compensation for are homemakers. The granting of compensation for homemakers on a pecuniary basis, as in the present case, has been considered by this Court earlier on numerous occasions. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, while dealing with compensation for the victims of a fire during a function, granted compensation to housewives on the basis of the services rendered by them in the house, and their age. This Court, in that case, held as follows:

"10. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000 p.a. in cases of some and Rs.10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given data for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the data for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3000 per month and Rs.36,000 p.a."

(emphasis su