In vehicle accident claims, the Court acknowledged "loss of domestic care" as an additional basis for compensation.
 

In vehicle accident claims, the Supreme Court has ruled that the loss of domestic care given by a homemaker is a separate and compensable head of damages, with a minimum monthly value of Rs. 30,000.
 

The Court ordered:
"In order to overcome the inherent disadvantage accrued against the homemaker on a calculation of compensation on the basis of conservatively computed notional income and while being acutely aware of the dictum in Pranay Sethi (supra) regarding loss of consortium as well as the disposition towards uniformity, we deem it appropriate to direct that when a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, the High Court, or this Court is concerned with or a case involving the death of a homemaker, that a composite amount of Rs. 30,000/-will be added under the heading of "loss of domestic care" for the three main heads (the homemaker's contribution to the smooth operation of the household, the loss of maternal support for children, and the loss of spousal support/the support and care of their adult child, for the parents of the deceased), provided that all three of these heads are met in the particular case. Every three years, this decision will be updated by 10% cumulatively.

It should be made very clear that this sum of Rs. 30,000, or the loss of domestic care, is to be used as a "stand-in" (basic minimum monthly income) for monthly income in situations when the homemaker does not contribute to the household in strictly conventional monetary terms. The component of loss of domestic care in situations where the homemaker works will be added to the monthly income, as demonstrated by the Tribunal or Courts.

The bench, which was made up of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh, said that a homemaker's contribution goes beyond the home and is essential to the development of a country when it rendered its decision in an appeal resulting from a motor accident claim. The Court stressed that when evaluating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, a family's loss of domestic care as a result of a homemaker's death or incapacitation merits independent attention.

"We are also of the view that the housewife contributes to the growth of the human being and the nation. The homemaker builds nation. So we have laid down the principles, and as a nation builder, we have housewife, we have quantified the amount that the loss of domestic care monthly income minimum in any event would be 30,000 per month," Justice Karol said at that point. In addition to the types of losses acknowledged by the Supreme Court in the Pranay Sethi ruling, Justice Karol stated that "loss of domestic care" would be a basis for granting compensation in vehicle accident cases.

"We only hope and trust that the word Home Maker will now acquire the acronym of nation builder," Justice Karol stated. Regarding the role of homemakers The Court said, "The homemakers, to put it directly, actually are the 'nation builders' and they ought to be recognised as such," in order to increase the compensation due to the family of a homemaker who perished in a road accident in Haryana in November 2001. The Court bemoaned the fact that, despite the household heavily relying on their care and labor, homemakers are nonetheless seen as dependent on earning members. It stated that despite women's significant contributions to society and the economy, their unpaid domestic and caregiving labor is still underappreciated.

"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 Bench stated. The ruling goes into great detail about the social, emotional, financial, and psychological contributions that homemakers provide. The Court stated that homemakers have a crucial role in forming human capital, social ties, and national development, citing women as the first teachers of children and the invisible force behind families.

The Bench noted that although homemakers' contributions go well beyond biological reproduction, they also play a major role in developing the human capital that underpins the nation's economic goals. It further stated that other family members are able to pursue education, careers, and livelihoods thanks to the daily labor of homemakers. The Court also pointed out that although women's unpaid caring labor is thought to contribute between 15% and 17% of India's GDP, it is still mostly unacknowledged and unrecognized.

The Court noted that judicial acknowledgment of the value of homemakers' services has changed over time, citing past examples such as Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar. The Supreme Court noted that the idea that homemakers do not work was incorrect in a prior significant ruling in 2024 (Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Gyanesh Pandey) and decided that their presumed income could not be less than the minimum earnings announced for a daily wager.

The Bench concluded that compensation computations should not undervalue the contribution of homemakers by depending only on out-of-date notional income numbers; rather, they should take into account current reality. The Court set a minimum value of ₹30,000 per month for the loss of domestic care provided by the dead homemaker for calculating compensation. During the hearing, the Bench noted that although a homemaker's contribution cannot be fully monetized, courts must assign a monetary value in order to provide reasonable recompense.

The Bench concluded that compensation computations should not undervalue the contribution of homemakers by depending only on out-of-date notional income numbers; rather, they should take into account current reality. The Court set a minimum value of ₹30,000 per month for the loss of domestic care provided by the dead homemaker for calculating compensation. During the hearing, the Bench noted that although a homemaker's contribution cannot be fully monetized, courts must assign a monetary value in order to provide reasonable recompense.

In order to guarantee prompt adjudication and efficient application of the principles outlined in the ruling, the Court further stated that it expected the Chief Justices of all High Courts to oversee vehicle accident claim procedures.

Case : SHISHUPAL @ SHISH RAM AND ORS. v. SURJEET AND ORS | SLP(C) No. 33915/2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 617