Supreme Court of India
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL AND ANOTHERversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 416
- Decided
- 22 July 2010
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
Compensation to the dependents of a non‑earning housewife/mother under Section 166 must be calculated using the notional income provision of Clause 6 of the Second Schedule and an appropriate multiplier, resulting in an award of Rs 6 lakhs.
Summary
The petitioners, the husband and son of a 39‑year‑old housewife who died in a road accident, claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded Rs 6 lakhs based on the notional income provision of Clause 6 of the Second Schedule but reduced it to Rs 2.5 lakhs; the High Court upheld the reduction. The Supreme Court examined the appropriate method for valuing the gratuitous services of a non‑earning wife/mother and held that Section 163A does not apply to Section 166 claims, but in the absence of a specific rule the criteria in Clause 6 of the Second Schedule must be used with a proper multiplier. The Court rejected the Tribunal’s and High Court’s reasoning for reducing the award and ordered compensation of Rs 6 lakhs with interest. It also highlighted the gender bias in existing statutory provisions and urged legislative amendment.
Issues considered
- The appropriate criteria for determining compensation to dependents of a non‑earning housewife/mother under a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether Clause 6 of the Second Schedule can be applied to Section 166 claims despite the non‑applicability of Section 163A.
- Whether the Tribunal’s reduction of the compensation award was legally justified.
- The method of quantifying the value of a housewife’s gratuitous services for compensation purposes.
Legislation cited
- Census Act, 1948s. 4
- Insurance Act, 1938s. 64
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 163A, s. 166
- Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. Clause 6
Subjects
Motor Vehicles ActSection 166Section 163ASecond Schedulenon‑earning spousehousewife compensationdependency lossmultiplier methodgender biasvaluation of services
Judgment
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 303
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER A
V.
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5843 of 2010)
JULY 22, 2010
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 166 and 163A; Second
Schedule Clause (6) - Fatal motor accident - Of non-earning
mother/house-wife - Claim petition u/s. 166 - Compensation C
to her dependants - Criteria for determination - Held: The
claimants are entitled to compensation - The services of non-
earning mother/house-wife cannot be compared with .that of
a house-keeper/servant/employee, but monetary values
should be put to the services rendered by them - Though s. D
163A does not apply, in terms, to claim u/s. 166, yet in the
absence of a definite criteria for determination of
compensation payable to the dependants of non-earning
house-wife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the
criteria specified in clause (6) of the Second Schedule and E
then to apply appropriate multiplier - Suggestion to
Parliament to amend the provisions of the Act and the related
·laws for giving compensation to the dependents of woman!
home-maker - Legislation.
Words and Phrases - 'Services' - Meaning of. F
A woman, aged about 39 years, died in a motor
accident. The Appellant No. 1 (husband) and appellant No.
2 (son) filed a petition u/s. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
seeking compensation of Rs. 19,20,000/- . The Motor G
Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the claimants were
entitled to compensation. While determining the quantum
of compensation, it held that in view of clause (6) of
303 H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the income
of the deceased could be assessed at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. (Rs.
68,000 p.a.) and after making deduction of Rs. 20,000
towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 15,
the total loss of dependency was assessed as Rs. 6
B lakhs. However, the tribunal reduced the amount of
c~mpensation to Rs. 2,50,000/-. The appeal, preferred by
the claimants was dismissed by the High Court.
In the instant appeal, the question for determination
was as to what should be the criteria for determination
C of the compensation payable to the dependants of a
woman who dies in a road accident and who does not
have regular source of income.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
D
HELD: Per G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. It is not possible to
quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by
the wife/mother to the family i.e. husband and children.
However, for the purpose of award of compensation to
E the dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to be made
of the services of housewife/mother. In that context, the
term 'services' is required to be given a broad meaning
and must b~ construed by taking into account the loss
of personal care and attention given by the deceased to
her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife.
F They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the
loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased.
The amount payable to the dependants cannot be
diminished on the ground that some close relation like a
grandmother may volunteer to render some of the
G services to the family which the deceased was giving
earlier. [Para 24] [333-H; 334-A-C]
2. It is highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to
compute the compensation payable to the dependents of
H a deceased wife/mother, who does not have regular
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 305
COMPANY
income, by comparing her services with that of a house- A
keeper or a servant or an employee, who works for a
fixed period. The gratuitous services rendered by wife/
mother to the husband and children cannot be equated
with the services of an employee and no evidence or data
can possibly be produced for estimating the value of 8
such services. It is virtually impossible to measure in
terms of money the loss of personal care and attention
suffered by the husband and children on the demise of
the house-wife. [Para 32] [338-E-G]
3. Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contains C
a special provision for payment of compensation on the
basis of a structured formula as indicated in the Second
Schedule of the Act, which contains a table prescribing
the compensation to be awarded with reference to the
age and income of the deceased. The note appended to D
column (1) of the Second Schedule makes it clear that
from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd is to be
deducted in consideration of the expenses which the
victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself,
had he been alive. Clause (6) of the Second Schedule lays E
down that in the cases of fatal and disability in non-fatal
accidents, income of the non-earning person should be
taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum and that of spouse shall
be taken as 1/3rd of the income of the earning/surviving
spouse. [Para 14] [326-G-H; 327-A-B] F
4. Though, Section 163A does not, in terms, apply to
the cases in which claim for compensation is filed u/s. 166
of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for
determination of compensation payable to the
dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would G
be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in clause
(6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate
multiplier. [Para 32] [338-H; 339-A-B]
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S C.R.
A General Manager Kera/a State Road Transport
Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. 1994 (2)
SCC 176; UP. S.R. TC. v. Tri/ok Chandra 1996 (4) SCC 362;
Sar/a Verma (S'mt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Anr. 2009 (6) sec 121 - relied on.
B
Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 385; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena
Variya/ (2007) 5 SCC 428; Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna
Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SCC 441; Gujarat SRTC v.
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234; Sar/a Verma
C (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr (2009)
6 SCC 121; Raj Rani and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited and Ors. (2009) 13 SCC 654; Ningamma
and Anr. v. United Insurance Company Limited (2009) 13
sec 710 - referred to.
D
5. In the instant case, appellant No.1 in his deposition
had categorically stated that the deceased was earning
Rs.50,0001- per annum by paintings and handicrafts, the
respondents did not lead any evidence to controvert the
E same. Notwithstanding this, the tribunal and the High
Court altogether ignored the income of the deceased. The
tribunal did advert to the Second Schedule of the Act and
observed that the income of the deceased could be
assessed at Rs.5,0001- per month (Rs.60,000/- per annum)
F because the income of her spouse was Rs.15,4161- per
month and then held that after making deduction, the
total loss of dependency cou'd be Rs.S lacs. However,
without any tangible reason, the tribunal decided to
reduce the amount of compensation by observing that
G the deceased was actually non-earning member and the
amount of compensation would be too much. The High
Court went a step further and dismissed the appeal by
erroneously presuming that neither of the claimants was
dependent upon the deceased and the ser1ices rendered
by her could be estimated as Rs.12501- per month. The
H
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 307
COMPANY
reasons assigned by the tribunal for reducing the amo~nt, . A
of compensation are wholly untenable and the approach
adopted by the High Court in dealing with the issue. 9f
payment of compensation to the appellan~ was ex fcicie .
erroneous and unjustified. [Paras 33 and 34] [339-E-tl;
340-A-B] B
6. The appellants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.6 lacs. Respondent No.1 is directed to P,ay; the said
amount of compensation along with interest at the. rate.
of 6% per annum from the date of filing application. u/s.
166 of the Act till the date of payment. [Para 35] [340 7C- C
DJ
Lata Wadha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 20Q1 (8)
SCC 197; M.S. Grewal and Anr. v. Deep Chand Sood and
Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 151; Municipal Corporation of Greater D
Bombay v. Lax man Iyer and Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 731; A.
Rajam v. M. Manikya Reddy 1989 ACJ 542 ; Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Shamsher Singh Manu-JK-0180-2002;
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mahadevan, Minor
Buvanadevi, Minor Venkatesh and Parameswaran (2009) E
ACJ 1373; Chandra Singh and Ors. v. Gurmeet Singh and
Ors.(2003) VII AD (Delhi) 222; Krishna Gupta and Ors. v.
Madan Lal and Ors. 96 (2002) DLT 829; Caplan Singh v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.112 (2004) DLT 417;
Amar Singh Thukral v. Sandeep Chhatwal 112 (2004) DLT, F.
478 - referred to.
Berry v. Humm and Co. (1915) 1 K.B. 627; Regan v. ·
Williamson (1976) 1 W.L.R. 305; Mehmet v. Perry (1977) 2 ·
i\11 ER 52 - referred to.
G
Kemp and Kemp on Quantum of Damages, (Special
Edition - 1986) - referred to.
Per Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. (Supplementing)
1. Despite the clear constitutional mandate to eschew H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A discrimination on the grounds of sex, in Article 15(1) of
the Constitution, in its implementation, there is a distinct
gender bias against women in various social welfare
legislations and also in judicial pronouncements.
[Para 2] [340-E-F]
B
2. Clause 6 of the Second Schedule to the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for notional income of those
who had no income prior to accident. Clause 6 has been
divided into two classes of persons, (a) non-earning
persons, and (b) spouse. Insofar as the spouse is
C concerned, the income of the injured in fatal and non-fatal
accident has been categorized as 1/3rd of the income of
the earning and surviving spouse. It is, therefore,
assumed if the spouse who does not earn, which is
normally the woman in the house and the home-maker,
D such a person cannot have an income more than 1/3rd
of the income of the person who is earning. This
categorization has been made without properly
appreciating the value of the services rendered by the
home-maker. To value the income of the home-maker as
E one-third of the income of the earning spouse is not
based on any apparently rational basis. [Para 3] [340-G-
H; 341-A-C]
3. In the Census of 2001, it appears that those who
F are doing household duties like cooking, cleaning of
utensils, looking after children, fetching water, collecting
firewood have been categorized as non-workers and
equated with beggars, prostitutes and prisoners who,
according to census, are not engaged in economically
G productive work. As a result of such categorization about
36 crores (367 million) women in India have been
classified in the Census of India, 2001 as non-workers
and placed in the category of beggars, prostitutes and
prisoners. This entire exercise of Census operation is
done under an Act of Parliament. The approach of
H
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 309
COMPANY
equating women, who are home-makers, with beggars, A
prostitutes and prisoners as economicaliy non-
productive workers by statutory authorities betrays -a
totally insensitive and callous approach towards the·
dignity of labour so far as women are concerned and is
also clearly indicative of a strong gender bias against B
women. It is thus clear that in independent India also, the -
process of categorizing is dominated by concepts which
were prevalent in colonial India and no attempt was made,·
to restructure those categories with a gender sensitivity.
which is the hallmark in the Constitution of India. [Paras c
4, 7 and 8] [341-D-E; 342-B-D]
4. Women are generally engaged in home-making,
bringing up children and also in production of goods and
services which are not sold in the market but are -
consumed at the household level. Thus, the work of D
women mostly goes unrecognized and they are never
valued. Therefore, in the categorization by the Census,
what is ignored is the well known fact that women make·
significant contribution at various levels including
agricultural production by sowing, harvesting;. E
transplanting and also tending catties and by cooking/
and delivering the food to those persons who are on the
field during the agriculture season. [Paras 10 and 11]
[342-E-H; 343-A]
F
5. The gender bias has also been reflected in the
judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court has
accepted the tribunal's reasoning of assessing the
income of the victim at Rs.1,250/- per month. Even if one
goes by the formula under clause (6) of the Second · G
Schedule, income of the victim comes to Rs.5,000/- per
month. [Para 13] [343-!3]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Minor Deepika rep. by her
guardian _and next friend, Ranganathan and Ors. (2009) 6
MLJ 1005 - referred to. H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A 6. It has to be recognized that the services produced
in the home by the women for other members of the
household are an important and valuable form of
production. It is possible to put monetary value to these
services. Alternative to imputing money values is to
B measure the time taken to produce these services and
compare these with the time that is taken to produce
goods and services which are commercially viable. One
has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered
by women in the household sustain a supply of labour
c to the economy and keep human societies going by
weaving the social fabric and keeping it in good repair. If
these services are taken for granted and no value is
attached to this, this may escalate the unforeseen costs
in terms of deterioration of both human capabilities and
0 social fabric. [Paras 23 and 25] [346-G-H; 347-E-F]
. 7. The time spent by women in doing household
work as home-makers is the time which they can devote
to paid work or to their education. This lack of
sensitiveness and recognition of their work mainly
E contributes to women's high rate of poverty and their
consequential oppression in society, as well as various
physical, social and psychological problems. The courts
and tribunals should do well to factor these
considerations in assessing compensation for
F housewives who are victims of road accident and
quantifying the amount in the name of fixing 'just
compensation'. [Para 26] [347-G-H; 348-A]
8. Parliament is required to have a rethinking for
G properly assessing the value of home-makers and
householders work and suitably amending the
provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and other related laws
for giving compensation when the victim is a woman and
a home-maker. Amendments in matrimonial laws may
H
ARUN KUM,A.R AGRAWAL v NATIONAL INSURANCE 311
COMPANY
also be made in order to give effect to the mandate of A
Article 15(1) in the Constitution. [Para 28] [348-D]
Case Law Reference:
In the Judgment of G.S. Singhvi, J:
B
(2004) 5 sec 385 Referred to. Para 15
(2007) 5 sec 428 Referred to. Para 16
(1977) 2 sec 441 Referred to. Para 16
(1987) 3 sec 234 Referred to. Para 16 c
2009 (6) sec 121 Referred to. Para 17
(2009) 13 sec 654 Referred to. Para 18
(2009) 13 sec 110 Referred to. Para 18 D.
(1915) 1 K.B. 627 Referred to. Para 20
(1976) 1 W.L.R. 305 Referred to. Para 21
(1977) 2 All ER 52 Referred to. Para 22
E
2001 (8) sec 197 Referred to. Para 25
(2001) 8 sec 151 Referred to. Para 26
(2003) 8 sec 731 Referred to. Para 26
F
1989 ACJ 542 Referred to. Para 27
Manu-JK-0180-2002 Referred to. Para 28
(2009) ACJ 1373 Referred to. Para 29
(2003) VII AD (Delhi) 222 Referred to. Para 30 G
96 (2002) DLT 829 Referred to. Para 30
112 (2004) DLT 417 Referred to. Para 30
112 (2004) DLT 478 Referred to. Para 30
H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 9 S C.R.
A 1994 (2) sec 176 Relied on. Para 32
1996 (4) sec 362 Relied on. Para 32
2009 (6) sec 121 Relied on. Para 32
In the Judgment of Asok Kumar Ganguly, J:
B
(2009) 6 MLJ 1005 Referred to. Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5843 of 2010.
c From the Judgment & Order dated 30.4.2004 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal from Order
number 2408 of 2003.
Sanjay Singh, Sharve Singh, Ugra Shankar Prasad for the
D Appellant
Hetu Arora, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal Arun Kumar
Beriwal, Vishnu Mehra (for B.K. Satija) for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. What should be the criteria for determination of the
compensation payable to the dependents of a woman who dies
in a road accident and who does not have regular source of
F income is the question which arises for determination in this
appeal filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court which declined to enhance the
compensation awarded to the appellants by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Shahjahanpur (for short, 'the Tribunal').
G
3. Smt. Renu Agrawal (wife of appellant No.1 - Arun
Kumar Agrawal and mother of appellant No.2 - Suwarna
Agrawal) died in a road accident when the car driven by
appellant No.1 was hit by truck bearing No.UGK-489 in village
H Pachkora, District Hardoi, U.P. The appellants filed a petition
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 313
COMPANY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.}
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, · A
'the Act') for award of compensation of Rs.19,20,000/- by
asserting that the accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of the truck which was owned by respondent
No.2, Mohd. Farooq and was ,insured with respondent No.1.
They pleaded that the deceased was 39 years of age at the 8
time of accident and due to her death, life of appellant No.1
had become miserable inasmuch as being a government
servant he was unable to look after his minor child. They further
pleaded that the deceased used to look after domestic affairs
of the family and both the appellants have been deprived of the C
care, love and affection of the deceased and the comfort of her
company.
4. The owner of the truck (respondent No.2), its driver
(respondent No.4) and the insurance company (respondent
No.1) contested the claim. All of them denied that the accident D
was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by
respondent No.4. According to them, appellant No.1 was
responsible for the accident. They disputed the dependency of
the appellants and the quantum specified in the claim petition.
Respondent No.1 further pleaded that it was not liable to pay E
compensation because driving licence of respondentNo.4 was
not valid; that the owner had not complied with Section 64 VB
of the Insurance Act and that the uwner and the insurer of Tata
Sumo UP-65/4559, which was also involved in the accident
were not rr.ade parties. F
5. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the
parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to
rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.4 and
being legal heirs of the deceased, the appellants are entitled
to compensation. While dealing with the issue relating to the G
quantum of compensation, the Tribunal extensively referred to
the statement of appellant No.1, who stated that the deceased
was earning Rs.50,000/- by engaging herself in paintings and
H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 9 S.C.R.
A handicrafts. The Tribunal held that the deceased was deeply
involved in the family affairs and after her death, the entire family
was broken and as a result of that, working capacity of appellant
No.1 was decreased. The Tribunal noted that at the time of
accident monthly income of appellant No.1 was Rs.15,416/- and
8 held that in view of clause 6 of Second Schedule of the Act,
the income of the deceased could be assessed at Rs.5,000/-
per month (Rs.60,000/- per annum) and after making deduction
of Rs.20,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased and
applying the multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency comes
C to Rs.6 lacs. However, instead of awarding that amount as
compensation, the Tribunal reduced the same to Rs.2,50,000/
- by making the following observations:
"The claimants are entitled to this amount of compensation
but keeping in mind that the deceased was actually not an
D earning member and this is only based on notional income.
The amount of compensation is too much and as such a
lesser multiplier could be adopted in the present case. In
the circumstances of this case, the claimants are entitled
to Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation from the insurance
E company. This issue is accordingly decided with the above
observation."
6. The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the
appellants by making the following observations:
F "At the time of accident claimant No.1 Arun Kumar Agrawal
was getting monthly salary of Rs.15,416/- and at time of
filing the appeal Rs.24,042/- per month. Claimant Arun
Kumar Agarwal and his son aged about seven years are
the only legal representatives of the deceased. Neither of
G the claimants were dependents upon the deceased. The
services rendered by Renu Agrawal, the deceased as
house wife may be estimated at Rs.1250.00 per month
and thus the annual contribution by rendering services
comes to Rs.15,000/- and applying the multiplier of 15 it
H comes to Rs.2,25,000/- and adding the amount of
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 315
COMPANY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Rs.3000.00 as funeral expenses, Rs.7,000.00 due to loss A
of love and affection to the son and Rs.15,000.00 due to
loss of comfort consortium, the compensation comes to
Rs.2,50,000.00.' Thus, considering all the facts and
circumstances, the compensation awarded is just and fair."
·B
7. Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the appellant
relied upon the judgment of this Court in Lata Wadha and
others v. State of Bihar and others (2001) 8 sec 197 and
argued that the Tribunal and the High Court committed serious
error by not awarding just and fair compensation to the
appellants ignoring that the family was not only deprived of the C
money which the deceased used to earn from paintings and
handicrafts but also of her services as housewife/mother apa·rt
from the care, love, affection and comfort of her company.
Learned counsel submitted that the award of the Tribunal is
liable to be modified because it did not assign any reason for ·D
reducing the amount of compensation payable to the appellants
in terms of the loss of dependency i.e. Rs.6 lacs. ~earned
counsel then argued that both the Tribunal and the High Court
erred in refusing to recognize the immense importance of the
invaluable services rendered by a housewife/mother to the · E
family throughout her life. Learned counsel finally submitted that
even if a housewife/mother doe-; not earn a single penny in
material terms, the criteria laid down by the legislature in clause
6 of the Second Schedule appended to the Act should be
applied for awarding compensation in petitions filed under · · F
Section 166 of the Act.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
supported the award of the Tri~unal and the judgment of the
High Court and argued that criteria laid down in Section 163A G
of the Act cannot be invoked for awarding higher compensation ·
to the appellants because they had filed petition under s.ection
166 of the Act. Learned counsel then submitted that no tangible
. evidence was produced before the Tribunal to show that the
deceased used to earn Rs.50,000/- per annum from paintings
,'H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 9 S.C.R.
A and handicrafts and argued that the said amount was rightly not
taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of the
compensation payable to the appellants.
9. We have considered the respective submissions. At the
outset, we may notice some of the precedents in which guiding
8
principles have been laid down for determination of the
compensation payable to the victim(s) of the accident or their
legal representatives.
10. In General Manager Kera/a State Road Transport
C Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others (1994)
2 SCC 176, this Court considered the legitimacy of multiplier
method evolved and applied by the British Courts and approved
the same. The relevant paragraphs of that judgment are
extracted below:
D
"9. The assessment of damages to compensate the
dependants is beset with difficulties because from the
nature of things, it has to take into account many
imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased
and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would
E
have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount
that he would have contributed to the dependants during
that period, the chances that the deceased may not have
lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated
remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that
F the deceased might have got better employment or income
or might have lost his employment or income altogether.
10. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain
the net income of t~e deceased available for the support
G of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom
such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed
to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance
and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income
the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit
H of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 317
COMPANY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number A
of year's purchase.
13. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the
loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the
circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand
8
by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is
determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the
claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as
to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest
appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the
multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, C
regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the
capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period
for which the dependency is expected to last.
16. It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method D
is logically sound and legally we/I-established. There are
some cases which have proceeded to determine the
compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire
future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was
lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards E
uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as
compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance,
if the deceased was, say 25 years of age at the time of
death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method
would multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years - F
virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 - and even if one-third
or one-fourth is deducted therefrom towards the
uncertainties of future life and for immediate lump sum
payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and
34. This is wholly impermissible. We are, aware that some G
decisions of the High Courts and of this Court as well have
arrived at compensation on some such basis. These
decisions cannot be said to have laid down a settled
principle. They are merely instances of particular awards
in individual cases. The proper method of computation is H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A the multiplier-method. Any departure, except in exceptional
and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of
principle, lack of uniformity and an element of
unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Some
judgments of the High Courts have justified a departure
B from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 11 O-
B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 insofar as it envisages
the compensation to be 'just', the statutory determination
of a 'just' compensation would unshackle the exercise from
any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier
c method is the accepted method of ensuring a 'just'
compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty
of the awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High
Courts which have taken a contrary view. We indicate that
the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a
departure from which can only be justified in rare and
D
extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases."
(emphasis supplied)
11. In UP. S. R. T. C. v. Tri/ok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362,
E a three-Judge Bench referred to the principles evolved by British
Courts for award of damages and reiterated the multiplier
method spelt out in General Manager Kera/a State Road
Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (supra). The
Court then took note of the stark inconsistencies in the approach
F adopted by the motor accident claims tribunals and courts in
awarding compensation, referred to the amendment made in
the Act in 1994, pointed out the defects in the Second Schedule
and observed:
"15. We thought it necessary to reiterate the method of
G working out 'just' compensation because, of late, we have
noticed from the awards made by tribunals and courts that
the principle on which the multiplier method was developed
has been lost sight of and once again a hybrid method
based on the subjectivity of the Tribunal/Court has surfaced,
H introducing uncertainty and lack of reasonable uniformity in
ARUt'-J KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 319
COMPANY [GS. SJNGHVI, J.]
the matter of determination of compensation. It must be A
realised that the Tribunal/Court has to determine a fair
.amount of compensation awardable to the victim of an
accident which must be proportionate to the injury caused.
The two English decisions to which we have referred
earlier provide the guidelines for assessing the loss B
occasioned to the victims. Under the formula advocated
by Lord Wright in Davies, the loss has to be ascertained
by first determining the monthly income of the deceased,
then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the
deceased, and thus assessing the loss to the dependants c
of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in
this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an
appropriate multiplier. Let us illustrate: X, male, aged
about 35 years, dies in an accident He leaves behind his
widow and 3 minor children. His monthly income was
0
Rs.3500. First, deduct the amount spent on X every month.
The rough and ready method hitherto adopted where no
definite evidence was forthcoming, was to break up the
family into units, taking two units for an adult and one unit
for a minor. Thus X and his wife make 2+2=4 units and
E
each minor one unit i.e. 3 units in all, totalling 7 units. Thus
the share per unit works out to Rs.3500,7= Rs.500 per
month. It can thus be assumed that Rs.1000 was spent on
X. Since he was a working member some provision for his
transport and out-of-pocket expenses has to be estimated.
In the present case we estimate the out-of-pocket expense F
at Rs.250. Thus the amount spent on the deceased X
works out to Rs.1250 per month leaving a balance of
Rs.3500-1250=Rs.2250 per month. This amount can be
taken as the monthly loss to X's dependants. The annual
dependency comes to Rs.2250x12=Rs.27,000. This G
annual dependency has to be multiplied by the use of an
appropriate multiplier to assess the compensation under
the head of loss to the dependants. Take .the appropriate
multiplier to be 15. The compensation comes to
H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A Rs.27,000x15=Rs.4,05,000. To this may be added a
conventional amount by way of loss of expectation of life.
Earlier this conventional amount was pegged down to
Rs.3000 but now having regard to the fall in the value of
the rupee, it can be raised to a figure of not more than
B Rs.10,000. Thus the total comes to Rs.4,05,000+10,000=
Rs.4, 15,000.
17. The situation has now undergone a change with the
enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended
by Amendment Act 54 of 1994. The most important
c change introduced by the amendment insofar as it relates
to determination of compensation is the insertion of
Sections 163-A and 163-B in Chapter XI entitled
"Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks".
Section 165-A begins with a non obstante clause and
D provides for payment of compensation, as indicated in the
Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of the
deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we turn
to the Second Schedule, we find a table fixing the mode
of calculation of compensation for third party accident
E injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. The first column
gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second
column indicates the multiplier and the subsequent
horizontal figures indicate the quantum of compensation
in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim.
F According to this table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18
depending on the age group to which the victim belonged.
Thus, under this Schedule the maximum multiplier can be
up to 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas
case.
G
18. We must at once point out that the calculation of
compensation and the amount worked out in the Schedule
suffer from several defects. For example, in Item 1 for a
victim aged 15 years, the multiplier is shown to be 15 years
and the multiplicand is shown to be Rs.3000. The total
H
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 321
COMPANY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
should be 3000x15=45,000 but the same is worked out A
at Rs.60,000. Similarly, in the second item the multiplier
is 16 and the annual income is Rs.9000; the total should
have been Rs.1,44,000 but is shown to be Rs.1, 71,000.
To put it briefly, the table abounds in such mistakes. Neither
the tribunals nor the courts can go by the ready reckoner. B
It can only be used as a guide. Besides, the selection of
multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependant on the
age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a
bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are
his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in c
the choice of the multiplier. But these mistakes are limited
to actual calculations only and not in respect of other items.
What we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot
exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This is the improvement
over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed
0
16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal
position as courts and tribunals are using higher multiplier
as in the present case where the Tribunal used the
multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34, thereby
showing lack of awareness of the background of the E
multiplier system in Davies case."
(emphasis supplied)
12. In Sar/a Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, a two-Judge F
Bench made threadbare analysis of various issues arising
before the tribunals and the courts in cases involving claim for
award of compensation under the Act, reiterated the principles
laid down in General Manager Kera/a State Road Transport
Corporation v Susamma Thomas (supra), referred to the G
subsequent judgment in U.P. S.R. T.C. v. Trilok Chandra
(supra) and then observed:
"16. Compensation awarded does not become "just
compensation" merely because the Tribunal considers
it to be just. For example, if on the same or similar facts H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A (say the deceased aged 40 years having annual income
of Rs. 45, 000 leaving his surviving wife and child), one
Tribunal awards Rs. 10, 00, 000 another awards
Rs. 5, 00, 000, and yet another awards Rs. 1, 00, 000, all
believing that the amount is just, it cannot be said that
B what is awarded in the first case and the last case is just
compensation. "Just compensation" is adequate
compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, to make good the loss
suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can
c do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to
award of compensation. It is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be
D objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in
treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication,
and fairness and uniformity in the decision-making process
and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have
mathematical precision or identical awards in assessing
E compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards
in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same,
and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency
and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should
be the result of adjudicaticn to arrive at just compensation.
F In Susamma Thomas, this Court stated: (SCC p.185,
para 16)
"16 .... The proper method of computation is the
multiplier method. Any departure, except in
exceptional and extraordinary cases, would
G
introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of
uniformity and an element of unpredictability, for
the assessment of compensation."
18. Basically only three facts need to be established by
H
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 323
COMPANY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: A
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependants. B
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal t9 arrive at
the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the
income; c
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living
expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age
0
of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, there will be
uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be
lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for
the insurance companies to settle accident claims without E
delay."
(emphasis supplied)
_In paragraphs 20 to 24, the Court considered the issue of F
addition to income for future prospects and observed:
"24. In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the
income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit the income was
increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income
was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables G
and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule
of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual
salary income of the deceased towards future prospects,
where the deceased had a permanent job and was· below
40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A range, the words "actual salary" should be read as "actual
salary less tax"). The addition should be only 30% if the
age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should
be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more
than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a
B different percentage of increase, it is necessary to
standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being
applied or different methods of calculation being adopted.
Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed
salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the
c courts will usually take only the actual income at the time
bf death. A departure therefrom should be made only in
rare and exceptional cases involving special
circumstances."
The Court then considered the nature and extent of
D deduction for personal and living expenses and laid down the
following principles:
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made
towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the
E basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general
practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having
considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we
are of the view that where the deceased was married, the
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the
F deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number
of dependent family mel"1bers is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1 /4th)
where the number of dependent family members is 4 to
6, and one-fifth (1 /5th) where the number of dependent
family members exceeds six.
G 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants
are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle.
In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as
personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that
a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
H
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 325
COMPANY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married A
in a short time, in which event the contribution to the
parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further,
subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to
have his own income and will not be considered as a
dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a B
dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants,
because they will either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependent on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
c
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where the family of the
bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the D
deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother
and large number of younger non-earning sisters or
brother's, his personal and living expenses may be
restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be
taken as two-third." E
13. At this stage, it will be useful to notice Section 163A
which was inserted by Amendment Act No.54 of 1994. That
section and clause (6) of the Second Schedule read as under:-
" 163A. Special provisions as to payment of F
compensation on structured formula basis.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any
other law for the time being in force or instrument having
the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the
authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death G
or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of
the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the
Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the
case may be.
H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section,
"permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and
extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8
of 1923).
B (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1 ),
the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that
the death or permanent disablement in respect of which
the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or
neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles
concerned or of any other person.
c
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost
of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to
time amend the Second Schedule.
o Clause 6 of the Second Schedule
6. Notional income for compensation to those who had
no income prior to accident:- Fatal and disability in non-
fatal accidents:
E (a) Non-earning persons Rs.15,000/- p.a.
(b) Spouse Rs.1 !3rd of income
of the Earning/
surviving spouse
F In case of other injuries only "general damage" as
applicable."
14. Section 163A contains a special provision for payment
of compensation on the basis of a structured formula as
G indicated in the Second Schedule, which contains a table
prescribing the compensation to be awarded with reference to
the age and income of the deceased. The note appended to
column (1) of the Second Schedule makes it clear that from the
total amount of compensation, 1/3rd is to be deducted in
H
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 327
COMPANY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
consideration of the expenses which the victim would. have A
incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Clause
(6) of the Second Schedule lays down that in cases of fatal and
disability in non fatal accidents, income of non-earning person
should be taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum and that of spouse
shall be taken as 1/3rd of the income of the earning/surviving B
spouse.
15. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 385, a three-Judge Bench interpreted
various provisions of the Act including Section 163A and held:-
·C
"46. Section 163-A which has an overriding effect provides
for special provisions as to payment of compensation on
structured-formula basis. Sub-section (1) of Section 163-
A contains non obstante clause in terms whereof the owner
of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer is liable to o
pay in the case of.death or permanent disablement due to
accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle,
compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the
legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Sub-section
(2) of Section 163-A is in pari materia with sub-section (3) E
of Section 140 of the Act.
47. Section 163-A does not contain any provision identical
to sub-section (5) of Section 140 which is also indicative
of the fact that whereas in terms of the latter, the liability of
the owner of the vehicle to give compensation or relief F
under any other law for the time being in force continues
subject of course to the effect that the amount paid
thereunder shall be reduced from the amount of
compensation payable under the said section or Section
163-A. G
48. By reason of Section 163-A, therefore, the
compensation is required to be determined on the basis
of a structured formula whereas in terms of Section 140 ·
only a fixed amount is to be given. A provision of law H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A providing for compensation is presumed to be final in
nature unless a contra-indication therefor is found to be
in the statute either expressly or by necessary implication.
While granting compensation, the Tribunal is required to
adjudicate upon the disputed question as regards age and
B income of the deceased or the victim, as the case may
be. Unlike Section 140 of the Act, adjudication on several
issues arising between the parties is necessary in a
proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act.
51. The scheme envisaged under Section 163-A, in our
c opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof
the rights and obligations of the parties are to be
determined finally. The amount of compensation payable
under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered
or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any
D provision providing for set-off against a higher
compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of the said
provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens,
namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs.40,000
or less is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and
E 166 cater to all sections of society."
16. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (2007)
5 SCC 428, a two-Judge Bench referred to an apparent
inconsistency in the judgments of three-Judge Bench in Minu
F 8. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SCC
441 and two-Judge Bench in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai
Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234 and observed:-
"We think that"the law laid down in Minu B. Mehta v.
Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan was accepted by the
G legislature while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 by
introducing Section 163-A of the Act providing for payment
of compensation notwithstanding anything contained in the
Act or in any other law for the time being in force that the
owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall
H be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 329
COMPANY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the A
motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second
Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may
be, and in a claim made under sub-section (1) of Section
163-A of the Act, the claimant shall not be required to
plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement 8
in respect of which the claim has been made was due to
any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the
vehicle concerned. Therefore, the victim of an accident or
his dependants have an option either to proceed under
Section 166 of the Act or under Section 163-A of the Act. c
Once they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the
Act, they have necessarily to take upon themselves the
burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or
owner of the vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under
Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation will be o
awarded in terms of the Schedule without calling upon the
victim or his dependants to establish any negligence or
default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver
of the vehicle."
17. In Sar/a Verma's case also the Court noticed Section E
163A and observed:
"The principles relating to determination of liability and
quantum of compensation are different for claims made
under Section 163-A of the MV Act and claims under F
Section 166 of the MV Act. (See Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Meena Variyal) Section 163-A and the Second
Schedule in terms do not apply to determination of
compensation in applications under Section 166. In Trilok
Chandra this Court, after reiterating the principles stated G
in Susamma Thomas, however, held that the operative
(maximum) multiplier, should be increased as 18
(instead of 16 indicated in Susamma Thomas}, even in
cases under Section 166 of the MV Act, by borrowing the
H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A principle underlying Section 163-A and the Second
Schedule."
18. In Raj Rani and others v. Oriental insurance
Company Limited and others (2009) 13 SCC 654, this. Court
disapproved the practice adopted by the tribunals to deduct
B
lumpsum payments from the compensation awarded in the
motor accident claim's cases and observed that even though
the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to
the Act is not applicable in strict sense in a case under Section
166, whenever the Court has to apply the appropriate multiplier
c several factors including the income of the deceased, his family
background will have to be taken into consideration (paragraph
15). The same view was reiterated in Ningamma and another
v. United Insurance Company Limited (2009) 13 SCC 710
(paragraph 32).
D
19. We may now deal with the question formulated in the
opening paragraph of this judgment. In Kemp and Kemp on
Quantum of Damages, (Special Edition - 1986), the authors
have identified various heads under which the husband can
E claim compens2tion on the death of his wife. These include loss
of the wife's contribution to the household from her earnings,
the additional expenses incurred or likely to be incurred by
having the household run by a house-keeper or servant, instead
of the wife, the expenses incurred in buying clothes for the
F children instead of having them made by the wife, and similarly
having his own clothes mended or stitched elsewhere than by
his wife, and the loss of that element of security provided to the
husband where his employment was insecure or his health was
bad and where the wife could go out and work for a living.
G 20. In England the courts used to award damages solely
on the basis of pecuniary loss to family due to the demise of
the wife. A departure from this rule came to be made in Berry
v. Humm and Co. (1915) 1 K.B. 627 where the plaintiff claimed
damages for the death of his wife caused due to the negligence
H
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 331
COMPANY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
of the defendant's servants. After taking cognizance of some A
precedents, the learned Judge observed:
"I can see no reason in principle why such pecuniary loss
should be limited to the value of money lost, or the money value
of things lost, as contributions of food or clothing, and why I
B
should be bound to exclude the monetary loss incurred by
replacing services rendered gratuitously by a relative, if there
was a reasonable prospect of their being rendered freely in the
future but for the death."
21. In Regan v. Williamson (1976) 1 W.L.R. 305, the Court c
considered the issue relating to quantum of compensation
payable to the dependents of the woman who was killed in a
road accident. The facts of that case were that on the date of
accident, the plaintiff was aged 43 years and his children were
aged 14 years, 11 years, 8 years and 3 years respectively. The D
deceased wife/mother was aged 37 years1. The cost of a
housekeeper to carry out services previously1 rendered by his
wife was 22.5 pounds.per.week, the saving to him in not having
to clothe and feed his wife was 1O pound per week, leaving a
net loss of 12.50 pounds per week or 600 pounds a year. E
However, the Court took into account the value of other services.
previously rendered by the wife for which no substitute was
available and accordingly increased the dependency to 20
pounds a week. The Court then applied a multiplier of 11 in
reaching a total fatal accidents award of.12,298 pounds. In his F
judgment, Watkins, J. noted as under:
"The weekend care of the plaintiff and the boys remains a
problem which has not been satisfactorily solved. The
plaintiff's relatives help him to a certai.n extent, especially
on Saturday afternoons. But I formed the clear impression G
that the plaint/ff is often, at weekends, sbrely tired in trying
to b::i an effeative substitute for the ~eceased. The problem
could, to sorrne extent, be cured, by engaging another
woman, possibly to do duty at th~ we~kend, but finding
H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A such person is no simple matter. I think the plaintiff has not
made extensive inquiries in this regard. Possibly the
expense involved in getting more help is a factor which
has deterred him. Whatever be the reason, the plain fact
is that the deceased's services at the weekend have not
B been replaced. They are lost to the plaintiff and to the
boys ... "
He then proceeded to observe:
"I have been referred to a number of cases in which judges
c have felt compelled to look upon the task of assessing
damages in cases involving the death of a wife and mother
with strict disregard to those features of the life of a woman
beyond her so-called services, that is to say, to keep
house, to cook the food, to buy the clothes, to wash them
D and so forth. In more than one case, an attempt had been
made to calculate the actual number of hours it would take
a woman to perform such services and to compensate
dependants upon that basis at so much an hour and so
relegate the wife or mother, so it seems to me, to the
E position of a housekeeper.
While I think that the law inhibits me from, much as I should
like to, going all the way along the path to which Lord
Edmund-Davies pointed, I am, with due respect to the other
judges to whom I have been ref~rred, of the view that the
F word 'services' had been too narrowly construed. It should,
at least, include an acknowledgment that a wife and
mother does not work to set hours and, still less, to rule.
She is in constant attendance save for those hours when
she is, if that is the fact, at work. During some of those
G hours she may well give the children instruction on
essential matters to do with their upbringing an, possibly,
with such things as their homework. This sort of attention
seems to be as much of a service; and probably more
H
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 333
COMPANY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
value to them than the other kinds of service conventionally A
so regarded."
(emphasis supplied)
22. In Mehmet v. Perry (1977) 2 All ER 52, the pecuniary
value of a wife's services were assessed and granted under B
the following heads:-
(a) Loss to the family of the wife's housekeeping
services.
(b) Loss suffered by the children of the personal
c
attention of their mother, apart from housekeeping
services rendered by her.
(c) Loss of the wife's personal care and attention, which
the husband had suffered, i~ addition to the loss of her D
housekeeping services.
23. In India the Courts have recognised that the contribution
made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be
computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered E
by wife with true love and affection to the children and her
husband and managing the household affairs cannot be
equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother
does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance
of the family throughout the day and night unless she is F
employed and is required to attend the employer's work for
particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of
husband and children including cooking of food, washing of
clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable
guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or
maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, G
washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean etc., but
she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders
selfless service to her husband and children.
24. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. husband
and children. However, for the purpose of award of
compensation to the dependents, some pecuniary estimate has
to be made of the services of housewife/mother. In that context,
the term 'services' is required to be given a broad meaning and
B must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal
care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a
mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to
adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services
rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the
c dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some
close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some
of the services to the (amily which the deceased was giving
earlier.
25. In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (supra), this Court
D considered the various issues raised in the writ petitions filed
by the petitioners including the one relating to payment of
compensation to the victims of fire accident which occurred on
3.3.1989 resulting in the death of 60 persons and injuries to 113.
By an interim order dated 15.12.1993, this Court requested
E former Chief Justice of India, Shri Justice Y.V. Chandrachud to
look into various issues including the amount of compensation
payable to the victims. Although, the petitioners filed objection
to the report submitted by Shri Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, the
Court overruled the same and accepted the report. On the issue
F of payment of compensation to housewife, the Court observed:
"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
G
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 per annum in cases of some and
H
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 335
COMPANY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Rs.10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It A
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 B
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
per annum. This would apply to all those housewives
between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were c
active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore, should
be recalculated, taking th_y value of services rendered per
annum to be Rs.36,000 and thereafter, applying the
multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the
conventional amount is concerned, the same should be
0
Rs.50,000 instead of Rs.25,000 given under the Report.
So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group
of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken
at Rs.10,000 per annum and the multiplier applied is eight.
Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the values of
services rendered at Rs.10,000 per annum, cannot be held E
to ·be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to
Rs.20,000 per annum. In their case, therefore, the total
amount of compensation should be redetermined, taking
the value of services rendered at Rs.20,000 per annum and
then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and F
thereafter, adding Rs.50,000 towards the conventional
figure."
(emphasis supplied)
G
26. The judgment of Lata Wadhwa's case was referred to
with approval in M. S Grewal and another v. Deep Chand Sood
and others (2001) 8 sec 151 for confirming the award of
compensation of Rs.5 lacs in a case involving death of school
children by drowning due to negligence of teachers of the
H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2010] 9 S.C.R.
A school. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v.
Laxman Iyer and another (2003) 8 SCC 731, a two-Judge
Bench while deciding the issue of award of compensation
under Sections 110-A and 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939, referred to the judgments in Lata Wadhwa's case and
B MS. Grewal's case.
27. In A Rajam v. M Manikya Reddy 1989 ACJ 542
(Andhra Pradesh HC), M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (as he then was)
advocated giving of a wider meaning to the word 'services' in
C cases relating to award of compensation to the dependents of
a deceased wife/mother. Some of the observations made in
that judgment are extracted below:
"The loss to the husband and children consequent upon the
death of the housewife or mother has to be computed by
D estimating the loss of 'services' to the family, if there was
reasonable prospect of such services being rendered
freely in the future, but for the death. It must be remembered
that any substitute to be so employed is not likely to be as
economical as the housewife. Apart from the value of
E obtaining substituted services, the expense of giving
accommodation or food to the substitute must also be
computed. From this total must be deducted the expense
the family would have otherwise been spending for the
deceased housewife.
F While estimating the 'services' of the housewife, a narrow
meaning should not be given to the meaning of the word
'services' but it should be construed broadly and one has
to take into account the loss of 'personal care and
attention' by the deceased to her children, as a mother and
G to her husband, as a wife. The award is not diminished
merely because some close relation like a grandmother
is prepared to render voluntary services."
28. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Shamsher Singh
H Manu-JK-0180-2002, Jammu and Kashmir High Court
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 337
COMPANY [GS. SINGHVI, J.]
considered the question relating to award of compensation to A
the family of the deceased housewife, who was aged 24 years
at the time of accident, referred to Kemp and Kemp on
Quantum of Damages, Volume 1 and enhanced the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
B
29. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mahadevan,
Minor Buvanadevi, Minor Venkatesh and Parameswaran
(2009) ACJ 1373, the learned Single Judge referred to the
Second Schedule of the Act and observed that quantifying the
pecuniary loss at the same rate or amount even after 13 years C
after the amendment, ignoring the escalation in the cost of living
and the inflation, may not be justified.
30. In Chandra Singh and others v. Gurmeet Singh and
others (2003) VII AD (Delhi) 222, Krishna Gupta and others
v. Madan Lal and others 96 (2002) DLT 829, Captan Singh D
v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 112 (2004) DLT 417
and Amar Singh Thukral v. Sandeep Chhatwal 112 (2004) DLT
478, the Single and Division Benches of Delhi High Court
declined to apply the judgment of this Court in Lata Wadhwa's
case for the purpose of award of compensation under the Act. E
In Krishna Gupta v. Madan Lal (supra) the Division Bench of
the High Court observed as under:-
''The decision of the Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa (supra),
in our considered opinion, cannot be said to have any
F
application in the instant case. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
was the complete Code by itself. It not only provides for
the right of a victim and/or his legal heirs to obtain
compensation in case of bodily injury or death arising out
of use of motor vehicle, but the forum therefore has been
provided, as also the mode and manner in which the G
compensation to be awarded therefor. In such a situation,
it would be inappropriate to rely upon a decision of the
Apex Court, which had been rendered in an absolutely
different fact situation and in relation whereto there did not
H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A exist any statutory compensation. Lata Wadhwa (supra)
was decided in a matter where a fire occurred during a
celebration. The liability of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
was not disputed. Compensation was awarded having
regard to the peculiar feature obtaining in that case which
B has got nothing to do with the statutory compensation
payable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act."
31. In Amar Singh Thukral v. Sandeep Chhatwal (supra),
the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court adopted the
C yardstick of minimum rates of wages for the purpose of award
of compensation in the case of death of a housewife and then
proceeded to observe 'since there is no scientific method of
assessing the contribution of a housewife to her household, in
cases such as the present, resort should be had to the wages
of a skilled worker as per the minimum rates of wages in Delhi.
D Although, this may sound uncharitable, if not demeaning to a
housewife, there is hardly any option avai!able in the absence
of statutory guidelines'.
32. In our view, it is highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate
E to compute the compensation payable to the dependents of a
deceased wife/mother, wfio does not have regular income, by
comparing her services with that of a housekeeper or a servant
or an employee, who works for a fixed period. The gratuitous
services rendered by wife/mother to the husband and children
F cannot be equated with the services of an employee and no
evidence or data can possibly be produced for estimating the
value of such services. It is virtually impossible to measure in
terms of money the loss of personal care and attention suffered
by the husband and children on the demise of the housewife.
G In its wisdom, the legislature had, as early as in 1994, fixed the
notional income of a non-earning person at Rs.15,000/- per
annum and in case of a spouse, 1/3rd income of the earning/
surviving spouse for the purpose of computing the
compensation. Though, Section 163A does not, in terms apply
to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under
H
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 339
COMPANY (G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite A
criteria for determination of compensation payable to the
dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be
reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in clause (6) of
the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier
keeping in view the judgments of this Court in General B
Manager Kera/a State Road Transport Corporation v.
Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others (supra), UP. S.R. TC.
v. Trilok Chandra (supra), Sar/a Verma (Smt.) and others v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra) and also
take guidance from the judgment in Lata Wadhwa's case. The c
approach adopted by different Benches of Delhi High Court to
compute the compensation by relying upon the minimum
wages payable to a skilled worker does not commend our
approval because it is most unrealistic to compare the
gratuitous services of the housewife/mother with work of a 0
skilled worker.
33. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that while
in his deposition, appellant No.1 had categorically stated that
the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- per annum by paintings
and handicrafts, the respondents did not lead any evidence to E
controvert the same. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal and the
High Court altogether ignored the income of the deceased. The
Tribunal did advert to the Second Schedule of the Act and
observed that the income of the deceased could be assessed
at Rs.5,000/- per month (Rs.60,000/- per annum) because the F
income of her spouse was Rs.15,416/- per month and then held
that after making deduction, the total loss of dependency could
be Rs.6 lacs. However without any tangible reason, the Tribunal
decided to reduce the amount of compensation by observing
that the deceased was actually non-earning member and the G
amount of compensation would be too much. The High Court
went a step further and dismissed the appeal by erroneously
presuming that neither of the claimants was dependent upon
the deceased and the services rendered by her could be
H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 9 S.C.R.
A estimated as Rs.1250/- per month.
34. In our view, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for
reducing the amount of compensation are wholly untenable and
the approach adopted by the High Court in dealing with the
issue of payment of compensation to the appellants was ex
8
facie erroneous and unjustified.
35. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment as also the award of the Tribunal are set aside and
it is held that the appellants are entitled to compensation of
C Rs.6 lacs. Respondent No.1 is directed to pay the said amount
of compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing application under Section 166 of
the Act till the date of payment. The needful shall be done within
the period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of
O copy of this order. The appellant shall get cost of Rs.50,000/-
GANGULY, J. 1. While agreeing with the judgment
delivered by my learned brother Singhvi, J., I wish to add my
E perception of the problem which has been raised in this case.
2. Despite the clear constitutional mandate to eschew
discrimination on grounds of sex in Article 15(1) of the
Constitution, in its implementation there is a distinct gender
bias against women in various social welfare legislations and
F also in judicial pronouncements.
3. In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, 'the said
Act'), Section 163A provides for special provision for payment
of compensation on structured formula basis. The said Section
G has been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment by brother
Singhvi, J. Therefore, I refrain from quoting the same. The
Second Schedule which is referred to in the said Section has
several clauses. Clause 6 of the said Schedule provides for
notional income of those who had no income prior to accident.
H Clause 6 has been divided into two classes of persons, (a) non-
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 341
COMPANY [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
earning persons, and (b) spouse. Insofar as the spouse is A
concerned, the income of the injured in fatal and non-fatal
accident has been categorized as 1/3rd of the income of the
earning and surviving spouse. It is, therefore, assumed if the
spouse who does not earn, which is normally the woman in the
house and the homemaker, such a person cannot have an B
income more than 1/3rd of the income of the person who is
earning. This categorization has been made without properly
appreciating the value of the services rendered by the
homemaker. To value the income of the home-maker as one-
third of the income of the earning spouse is not based on any c
apparently rational basis.
4. This bias is shockingly prevalent in the work of Census.
In the Census of 2001 it appears that those who are doing
household duties like cooking, cleaning of utensils, looking after
children, fetching water, collecting firewood have been D
categorized as non-workers and equated with beggars,
prostitutes and prisoners who, according to Census, are not
engag~d in economically productive work. As a result of such
categorization about 36 crores (367 million) women in India
have been classified in the Census of India, 2001 as non- E
workers and placed in the category of beggars, prostitutes and
prisoners. This entire exercise of Census operation is done
under an Act of Parliament.
5. Under Section 4 of the Census Act, 1948, the Central F
Government may appoint a Census Commissioner to
supervise the taking of census throughout the area where
census is intended to be taken.
6. The Central Government has made Census Rules, 1990
under Section 18 of the Census Act, 1948. Under Rule 5(c}, G
(d) and (e) of the Rules, the functions of the Commissioner are
listed, which include devising the census schedules or
questionnaires, compiling and providing guidance in taking and
computing results and publishing the statistics.
H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 9 S.C.R.
A 7. The Census Commissioner released data on
classification of population by workers and non-workers based
on provisional results of the Census of India 2001 on 30th
January, 2002. Thus, the categorization, compilation and
computation of the data was done under the supervision and
B guidance of the Census Cbmmissioner. Thts is totally a
statutory exercise by public authorities. Therefore, this approach
of equating women, who ate homemakers, with beggars,
prostitutes and prisoners as economically non-productive
workers by statutory authorities betrays a totally insensitive and
c callous approach towards the dignity of labour so far as women
are concerned and is also clearly indicative of a strong gender
bias against women.
8. It is thus clear that in independent India also the process
of categorizing is dominated by concepts which were prevalent
D in colonial India and no attempt has been made to restructure
those categories with a gender sensitivity which is the hallmark
in our Constitution.
9. Work is very vital to the system of gender reconstruction
E in societies and in this contextmasculine and feminine work is
clearly demarcated. The question which obviously arises is
whether Census definition of work reflects the underlying
process of gender discrimination.
10. Women are generally engaged in home making,
F bringing up children and also in production of goods and
services which are not sold in the market but are consumed at
the household level. Thus, the work of women mostly goes
unrecognized and they are never valued.
G 11. Therefore, in the categorization by the Census what is
ignored is the well known fact that women make significant
contribution at various levels including agricultural production
by sowing, harvesting, transplanting and also tending catties
H
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 343
COMPANY [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
and by cooking and delivering the food to those persons who A
are on the field during the agriculture season.
12. Though, Census operation does not call for
consideration in this case but reference to the same has been
made to show the. strong bias shown against women and their
8
work. We hope and trust that in the on-going Cens~s operation
this will be corrected.
13. The same gender bias has been reflected in the
judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court has
accepted the tribunal's reasoning of assessing the income of C
the victim at Rs.1,250/- per month. Even if we go by the formula
under clause 6 of the Second Schedule, income of the victim
comes to Rs.5,000/- per month.
14. In a recent judgment, the Division Bench of Madras D
High Court in a case of compensation under the said Act has
discussed this aspect of the matter. (See National Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Minor Oeepika rep. by her guardian and next
friend, Ranganathan and others reported in (2009) 6 MLJ
1005]. The learned Judge has referred to the general E
recommendation No. 17 of the Convention on the Elimination
of ,ll.11 Forms of Discrimination Against Women {CEDAW). The
said general recommendation deals with the measurement and
quantification of the unremunerated domestic activities of
women and their recognition in the Gross National Product. The
relevant recommendations are:- F
"(a) Encourage and support research and experimental
studies to measure and value the unremunerated domestic
activities of women; for example, by conducting time-use
surveys as part of their national household survey G
programmes and by collecting statistics disaggregated by
gender on time spent on activiti_es both in the household
and on the labour market;
(b) Take steps, in accordance with the provisions of the H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 9 S.C.R.
A Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women and the Nairobi Forward-
looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women, to
quantify and include the unremunerated domestic:< activities
of women in the gross national product;
B
(c) Include in their reports submitted under article 18 of the
Convention information on the research and experimental
studies undertaken to measure and value unremunerated
domestic activities, as well as on the progress made in
the incorporation of the unremunerated domestic activities
c of women in national accounts.
15. India is a signatory to the said Convention and ratified
the CEDAW Convention on 9th July, 1993. But even then no
law has been made for proper evaluation of the household work
D by women as homemakers.
16. The Madras High Court in Minor Deepika (supra) has
observed very pertinently:
"9. The UNICEF in 2000, noted that "unpaid care work is
E the foundation of human experience". The care work is that
which is done by a woman as a mother and definitely in
India, the woman herself will be the last person to give this
role an economic value, given the social concept of the role
of a mother. But when we are evaluating the loss suffered
F by the child because her mother died in an accident, we
think we must give a monetary value to the work of a
caregiver, for afterall, the home is the basic unit on which
our civilised society rests ... "
G 17. The Madras High Court in its very illuminating judgment
in Minor Deepika (supra) has further referred to various
methods by which the assessment of work of a homemaker can
be made and the relevant portion from para 10 of the said
judgment is extracted below:-
H " ... that there have been efforts to understand the value of
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 345
COMPANY [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
a homemaker's unpaid labour by different methods. One A
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 B
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." c
18. Various aspects of the nature of homemaker's job have
been described in para 11 which are very relevant and are
extracted below:-
"11. The role of a housewife includes managing budgets, 0
co-ordinating activities, balancing accounts, helping
children with education, managing help at home, nursing
care etc. One formula that has been arrived at determines
the value of the housewife as, Value of housewife =
husband's income - wife's income + value of husband's E
household services, which means the wife's value will
increase inversely proportionate to the extent of
participation by the husband 11: the household duties. The
Australian Family Property Law provides that while
distributing properties in matrimonial matters, for instance, F
one has to factor in "the contribution made by a party to
the marriage to the welfare of the family constituted by the
parties to the marriage and any children of the marriage,
including any contribution made in the capacity of a
homemaker or parent."
G
19. In paragraph 13, the Division Bench of the High Court
has observed and, in my view very rightly, that time has come
· to scientifically assess the value of the unpaid homemaker both
in accident claims c:fnd in matters of division of matrimonial
properties. H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A 20. It may be of some interest to point out that in the
Constitution of Cambodia, Article 36 provides as under:-
"Article 36 -
0 Khmer citizens of either sex shall have the
B right to choose any employment according to
their ability and to the needs of the society.
o Khmer citizen of either sex shall receive
equal pay for equal work.
c 0 The work by housewives in the home shall
have the same value as what they can
receive when working outside the home.
xxxx xxxx xxxxx"
D
21. It must be noted that as a result of First World
Conference on Women held in Nairobi in 1985, the Statistical
Officers of United Nations International Research and Training
Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW), took a
E major role in promoting the revision of national accounts and
other information on women's work.
22. The purpose of maintaining such satellite accounts is
to assess the 11npaid production of goods and services by
homemakers. In 1934, the American economist Margaret Reid
F suggested a different approach while arguing that if a third
person could be paid to do the unpaid activities carried out by
homemakers such activities should be counted as part of
production.
G 23. Admittedly, it has to be recognized that the services
produced in the home by the women for other members of the
household are an important and valuable form of production. It
is possible to put monetary value to these services as for
instance, the monetary value of cooking for family members
H could be assessed in terms of what it would cost to hire a cook
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 347
COMPANY [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
or to purchase ready cooked food or by assessing how much A
money could be earned if the food cooked for the family were
to be sold in the locality.
24. Jayati Ghosh (Uncovering Women's Work) has referred
to National Sample Surveys and according to her, the surv~y
8
showed "57% of rural women and 19% of urban women were
engaged in the free collection of fuel wood for household
consumption. Activities related to food processing, such as
husking and grinding grain, were engaged in by around 15%
of women. Other unpaid activities such as maintaining kitchen C
gardens and looking after livestock and poultry also occupied
a majority of women - 60% in rural areas and 24% in urban
areas. These are all economic activities which in developed
societies are typically recognized as such because they are
increasingly delegated by women and performed through paid
contracts." D
25. Alternative to imputing money values is to measure the
time taken to produce these services and compare these with
the time that is taken to produce goods and services which are
commercially viable. One has to admit that in the long run, the E
services rendered by women in the household sustain a supply
of labour to the economy and keep human societies going by
weaving the social fabric and ke"i->ing it in good repair. If we
take these services for granted and do not attach any value to
this, this may escalate the unforeseen costs in terms of F
deterioration of both human capabilities and social fabric.
26. Household work performed by women throughout India
is more than US $ 612.8 billion per year (Evangelical Social
Action Forum and Health Bridge, page 17). We often forget that
!hf time spent by women in doing household work as G
hpmemakers is the time which they can devote to paid work
or to their education. This lack of sensitiveness and recognition
of their work mainly contributes to women's high rate of poverty
and their consequential oppression in society, as well as
various physical, social and psychological problems. The courts H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A and tribunals should do well to factor these considerations in
assessing compensation for housewives who are victims of
road accident and quantifying the amount in the name of fixing
'just compensation'.
27. In this context the Australian Family Property Law has
8
adopted a very gender sensitive approach. It provides that while
distributing properties in matrimonial matters, for instance, one
has to factor in "the contribution made by a party to the marriage
to the welfare of the family constituted by the parties to the
marriage and any children of the marriage, including any
C contribution made in the capacity of a homemaker or parent".
28. For the reasons aforesaid, while agreeing with the
views of brother Singhvi, J., I would humbly add, that time has
come for the Parliament to have a rethinking for properly
D assessing the value of homemakers and householders work
and suitably amending the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and
other related laws for giving compensation when the victim is
a woman and a homemaker. Amendments in matrimonial laws
may also be made in urder to give effect to the mandate of
Article 15(1) in the Constitution.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor Vehicles Act"Sign in to search