Supreme Law News

Is Housewife a wage earner for Insurance Claim ?

Housewife provides for her family, so her income can not be counted in the same way as that of a typical person. Bengal High Court

The compensation to be granted to Pratima Sahoo (appellant), a homemaker who had sustained serious injuries in an accident that occurred in October 2013, was therefore increased by single-judge Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta.

The Calcutta High Court ruled on Wednesday that a housewife's earnings cannot be determined in the same way as those of a normal individual because she also looks after the family in addition to performing home duties. Pratima Sahoo versus Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.

The bench took notice of the fact that the appellant Sahoo had disclosed her salary to the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) as being in the amount of 4,000. However, the Tribunal regarded her 3,000 as "notional" income.

The bench clarified that a homemaker is not required to provide proof of her income.

"It is unexpected for a housewife to provide documentation or a salary certificate to establish her true income. The duties of a housewife are more demanding than those of a typical job or wage earner. She cares for her husband, children, parents, and other family members the entire day by cooking, cleaning, and doing a variety of other tasks; as a result, her income cannot be compared to that of a typical worker. The bench ruled that her income could not be determined in terms of a monthly salary or compensation.

The MACT's Tamluk, Purba Medinipur verdict has been the subject of an appeal brought by the appellant on February 20, 2020. By means of the aforementioned verdict, the MACT had mandated that the insurance provider give the appellant compensation in the amount of 2,09,746.

According to the case's facts, the appellant had suffered serious injuries after being struck by a motor vehicle. She claimed to have a 50% disability, was unable to freely travel from one location to another, and had reduced walking ability. She stated she lost her ability to make money in the future and had physical and emotional suffering.

The bench noted that the MACT had only paid out 5,000 for the appellant's mental suffering. It believed that the same was a much too small sum to fall within the specified group.

"As a homemaker, the appellant must endure her anguish, agony, and suffering. So, the compensation must be greater than 5000. She had received intensive treatment in numerous hospitals, thus the Tribunal should have given her more money under the heading of mental pain, misery, and suffering, the panel ruled.

The bench also noted that there is no set formula for calculating the amount under the title "pain and suffering," thus it ordered the defendants to pay 50,000 under that heading.

Therefore, in addition to the amount specified by the MACT, the bench ordered the insurance company to pay the appellant an additional compensation amount of 2,14,000 as well.

Your free access to Supreme Law News has expired

Supreme Law News Premium

Why should you subscribe?

* Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements

* Receive daily newsletters

* Receive real-time Telegram/Whatsapp news updates

* Download original judgments / orders / notifications / circulars, etc

* Enjoy exclusive entry fees to the Simplified series. (Webinars, seminars, masterclasses, etc.)

( special offer)

Subscribe Now

For further details contact:

Dr. Ajay Kummar Pandey

( LLM, MBA, (UK), PhD, AIMA, AFAI, PHD Chamber, ICTC, PCI, FCC, DFC, PPL, MNP, BNI, ICJ (UK), WP, (UK), MLE, Harvard Square, London, CT, Blair Singer Institute, (USA), Dip. in International Crime, Leiden University, the Netherlands )

Advocate & Consultant Supreme Court of India, High Courts & Tribunals.