The Supreme Court asserted on Friday that the contribution of a 'homemaker' is priceless, stating that the value of a woman's work at home is equal to that of someone earning a salary in an office.
Based on a panel of judges Suryan Kant and KV Viswanathan, it was stated that the value of a woman managing the home is significant and her efforts are difficult to measure in financial terms.
Additionally, the apex court emphasized the need for tribunals and courts to assess the hypothetical earnings of homemakers considering their efforts, work, and sacrifices in motor accident compensation cases.
Advertisement
The bench in its order reportedly stated, “The role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member whose income is tangible. If the activities performed by a homemaker are computed one by one, there cannot be any doubt that the contribution is of a high order and is invaluable. In fact, it is difficult to compute her contributions only in monetary terms."
What was the case all about?
The court was addressing a motor accident lawsuit related to the tragic passing of a woman from Uttarakhand in a 2006 road accident.
Since the vehicle she was in lacked insurance, the responsibility to compensate her family fell on the vehicle owner.
Advertisement
The family of the woman who was involved in the motor accident was awarded a total compensation of ₹2.5 lakh by the motor accident claims tribunal. The family consists of her spouse and young child.
Despite their appeal for increased compensation, the Uttarakhand High Court rejected their plea in 2017.
The high court, in its ruling, acknowledged her as a homemaker and consequently determined that compensation should be calculated considering her life expectancy and a minimal hypothetical income.
The court upheld the tribunal's decision to assess the woman's hypothetical income as lower than that of a daily wage worker.
On Friday, the Supreme Court criticized this position when considering the appeal against the high court's decision.
It condemned the high court for taking an old-fashioned approach and said, “How can a homemaker’s income be treated as less than that of a daily wager? We don’t accept such an approach."
The court emphasized the significant time and effort individuals dedicate to household chores.
Additionally, the higher court was criticized by the supreme court for numerous factual inaccuracies in its ruling, including errors in identifying the vehicle, the age of the deceased woman, and mislabeling her minor son as an adult.
Advertisement
Stating that “One should never underestimate the value of a homemaker,” the panel then decided to increase the payment to ₹6 lakh, instructing that it should be given to the family of the woman who passed away within six weeks.
