Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said the role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member and the activities performed by her are invaluable, which cannot assessed in monetary terms. While saying so, the court enhanced the compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 granted by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal to Rs. 6,00,000.

Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, it appears to us that the monthly income of the deceased, at the relevant time, could not be less than Rs.4,000/- p.m. or so. However, instead of calculating the compensation under different heads, and also keeping in mind the fact that the appellants and the respondents are closely related, and the delinquent vehicle was not insured, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal in part to the extent that the appellants are granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, the bench pointed out.

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and K V Vishwanathan allowed the appeal filed by Arvind Kumar Pandey and others against the Uttarakhand High Court's order which refused to interfere with the amount of Rs 2.50 lakh awarded to the children of the deceased by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The court noted appellant nos 2 and 3 were students at the relevant time, and were surely dependent on the parents including their deceased mother. 

In the case, the bench was constrained to observe that the impugned order passed by the High Court was full of factual as well as legal errors. 

"The High Court overlooked the fact that the deceased was about 50 years old and not 55 years old. Similarly, the High Court has committed a patent error in observing that the appellants are not dependent on the deceased," the bench said.

"The High Court again misread the facts while observing that the deceased was travelling in the bus, while actually she was traveling in the car," the bench said.

With regard to the fact that the deceased was not employed, it cannot be disputed that she was a homemaker, the court said.

The bench said her direct and indirect monthly income, in no circumstances, could be less than the wages admissible to a daily wager in the State of Uttarakhand under the Minimum Wages Act.

"It goes without saying that the role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family. The activities performed by a home-maker, if counted one by one, there will hardly be any doubt that the contribution of a home-maker is of a high order and invaluable. In fact, it is difficult to assess such a contribution in monetary terms," the bench said.

Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, the bench said it appeared that the monthly income of the deceased, at the relevant time, could not be less than Rs 4,000 per month or so. 

The court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs 6 lakh, saying instead of calculating the compensation under different heads, it also kept in mind the fact that the appellants and the respondents are closely related, and the delinquent vehicle was not insured.

The appellants in the case were husband and son and daughter of deceased Sushma Pandey who died on June 26, 2006 after the car in which she was travelling skidded off and fell in a ditch.

They filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs 16.85 lakh. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the plea on the ground that the vehicle in question was not insured.

The appellants approached the High Court which remanded the matter back to the MACT which computed the compensation as Rs 2.5 lakh. The High Court this time dismissed the challenge to the MACT order.