Point of Law : Monetary compensation for an injury caused to a housewife will have to be measured and weighed on same scales, as it would been, had she been a working woman.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant, a lady of 61 years, was traveling in a bus owned by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) on 24.08.2006, when, on account of a rash application of brake by its driver, she was thrown of from her seat, thus suffering grievous injuries.

2. The appellant asserts that she had to undergo extensive treatment, being bedridden and under extreme trauma, for a long period of time; and therefore, that she was justified in having approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda (‘Tribunal’ for short), by filing O.P(MV)No.886 of 2008, seeking compensation of nearly Rs.2 Lakhs; but which has been allowed by the Tribunal, by grant of a mere Rs.40,214/-.

3. The appellant predicates that the amount granted by the Tribunal is so exiguous, that it obtains no reasonable nexus to the injury which she suffered, particularly because her future life has been very severely impaired. She thus prays that the impugned Award of the Tribunal be set aside and the amounts sought for by her be granted.

4. In response to the afore submissions of Sri. P.V. Baby – learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Alex Antony Sebastian – learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, vehemently asserted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is irreproachable, especially because the appellant was a house wife, without any income. He submitted that, therefore, when the appellant herself conceded that she had no income, nothing more would have been granted by the Tribunal, in excess of what has been now awarded. He thus prayed that this Appeal be dismissed.

5. At the outset, I must say that the contentions of the KSRTC, that a housewife earns no income and therefore, not eligible for compensation for disability and loss of amenities, is outrageous and beyond comprehension. The role of a mother and wife at home is beyond compare, and she is a true nation builder. She invests her time for the family and ensures that the next generation is fostered with the highest levels of excellence; and her efforts can never be taken trivially or brushed aside, as being without monetary value. The lives of human beings are never tested on the scales of their monetary worth, but by their contribution and selflessness.

6. In such perspective, the monetary compensation for an injury caused to a housewife will have to be measured and weighed on the same scales, as it would been, had she been a working woman – if not more.

7. That said, in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, in the case of a person whose income is unascertainable in the year 2006 – when the accident occurred – the reasonable standard to be reckoned would be Rs.5,500/-per month. Though, as I have already said above, no amount could really compensate the effort of a mother or wife at home, I am of the certain view that the Tribunal ought to have adopted at least this figure for the grant of a just and equitable compensation.

8. Moving on, Ext.A4 – wound certificate discloses that the appellant suffered from spinal fracture, leading to its compression, leaving her with difficulty in breathing and pain all over the body. It is the uncontroverted evidence on record, including her own deposition, that she was bedridden and suffering from acute pain for a long period of time, which finds resonance in Ext.A7 – disability certificate and Ext.A8 – discharge certificate. When one examines Ext.A7 – disability certificate, it ineluctably records that the appellant suffered from a malunited fracture on the vertebra, with loss of more than 50% movement; with back pain and stiffness, leading to limitation of the movement of the spine also to the extent of 25%, added with difficulty in breathing. In spite of this, the report records that she has only suffered 12% disability.

9. However, the learned Tribunal, merely for the reason that Ext.A7 was not proved by the appellant by examining the doctor who issu