Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act. Courts to award a composite sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of domestic care. 

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a homemaker can not be considered as dependant on earning members for award of compensation under MV Act. On death of a homemaker a composite sum of Rs.30,000/- to be added under the head of ‘loss of domestic care.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5166 (2026) (06) abacus.in SC

Important Case Laws relied upon by Parties
Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar
Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd
Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

In the instant case the deceased was a married women (Home maker) who had died due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) allowed Claim Petition preferred by her legal heirs and awarded a meagre amount only.

The claimants approached the High Court seeking enhancement of the awarded amount. The Single Judge Bench enhanced the said compensation to Rs. approx. 2.25 time along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the case remained pending in the High Court for twenty years and the file of the case was partially burnt/completely destroyed in a fire that occurred.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the deceased was claimed to have income from knitting and stitching. However, it was a mere statement without any backing. Therefore, it was considered as a case where the homemaker has no income in monetary terms but the compensation stands under the head loss of domestic care.

It was observed that the deceased (wife of the claimant) was a homemaker. The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that it is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependant on earning members, when, in reality the household’s functioning depends substantially on the homemaker. The earning members are in fact solely dependent on the homemaker but alas, this reality does not receive the acknowledgment it deserves.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that homemaker’s tasks that are considered ‘everyday’ such as cooking, cleaning and other similar activities that undoubtedly support the paid workforce by enabling economic productivity, yet they are in themselves not recognised as productive activities for the purposes of measures such as GDP. Every day, around sixteen billion hours individual are devoted to unpaid domestic work and care. On an average, women perform 2.6 times more unpaid caregiving/domestic work, even when they are otherwise contributing economically

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further pointed out that the economic shift of valuing a homemaker’s efforts is not limited only to monetary aspects. There has been a shift in sensibilities – a married woman who takes care of the house is no longer called a housewife and has now been elevated to the deserved status of homemaker in recognition of the multitudes of facets that her presence in the home covers.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the “homemakers”, to put it directly, actually are the “nation builders” and they ought to be recognised as such.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that there are several instances where judicial notice has been taken, of the efforts of the homemaker although referred to as housewife and attempts have been made to provide a pecuniary basis therefor.

Regarding computation of the damages under non-pecuniary heads, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the loss require the recognition of the loss of the homemaker’s dexterous ability to manage all the chores of the household. Secondly the children of the house who lost their mother, the source of never-ending love, comfort and affection, the person who they could run to with all their problems, questions and concerns and heartbreaks. Thirdly, a husband looses the support of his life partner. When the efforts of the homemaker towards the husband and children are taken on the whole it cannot be disputed that although her labour be at emotional or physical is within the four walls of the home, its impact is much wider.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the loss of a homemaker however is not limited to husband and children. It also directly impacts the women’s own parents who have been deprived of the love and company of their child, who have lost the support and comfort of this person and are left alone with this boundless grief. Still further, the loss is acutely felt by her in-laws who are more often than not members of the same household and therefore are dependent on the love, labour and dedication of this person, for food for medicines and doctor’s visit or for even the regular company over a morning tea. Strict arithmetic calculation does not lend its services to any of these scenarios.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that when a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or this Court is concerned with or a case involving the death of a homemaker, a composite sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be added under the head of ‘loss of domestic care’, provided that all three heads 9i.e. contribution towards smooth functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support for children and loss of spousal support/the support and care of their child who is an adult, for the parents of the deceased ) are met.

It was further directed that this determination shall be revised by 10%, cumulatively, every three years. That the amount of Rs. 30,000/- i.e., loss of domestic care is to be taken as a ‘standin’ (basic minimum monthly income) for monthly income in those cases where the homemaker does not have an input into the house, in strictly conventional, monetary terms. In those cases where the homemaker is part of the workforce, the component of loss of domestic care shall be in addition to the monthly income as may be proved before the Tribunal/Courts.

As a result, the Hon’ble Supreme Court computed the loss of domestic care/Monthly Income @ Rs. 30,000/- per month and enhanced the amount of total compensation to approx. 15 times amount by arriving at future prospects by applying the suitable multiplier.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC
• CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price
• Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities
• No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT
• Limitation u/s 34 of Arbitration Act commences on disposal of application u/s 33 by Arbitral Tribunal – SC