The court was hearing two connected motor accident compensation appeals filed by insurer Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited against awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in 2024, along with cross-objections by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, arising from compensation claims filed after a devastating road accident that claimed the lives of a husband, wife, a homemaker, and their elder daughter.

Calcutta High Court recognised the invaluable contribution of homemakers while enhancing compensation for a deceased housewife in a motor accident case. (Image enhanced using AI)

Entitled to adequate compensation

• The purpose of award of compensation to the dependants some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/mother.
• In that context the term ‘services’ is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife.

• They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased.
• The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation, like a grandmother, may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier.

Negligent parking held responsible for accident

The insurer had argued that the offending mini-truck was stationary at the time of the accident and therefore its driver could not be held responsible for the collision.

The court observed that although domestic work cannot be accurately measured in monetary terms, courts must award compensation that is just and reasonable to the dependants who suffer such a loss.

Rejecting the contention, the court held that a stationary vehicle does not escape liability when it is parked negligently in a manner that creates danger for other road users.

According to the court, the police charge sheet and eyewitness evidence consistently indicated that the mini-truck had been parked illegally in the middle of the highway without proper warning signals.

Background

• On April 16, 2022, Shamit Samanta was travelling with his wife Barnali and their two daughters when their car collided with a mini-truck allegedly parked in the middle of NH-6 near Harina Bus Stand.
• The crash claimed the lives of Shamit, Barnali and their elder daughter Sinjini. Their younger daughter Saanvi survived but suffered serious injuries.
• The family alleged that the mini-truck had been negligently parked without warning signals, leading to the fatal collision.

Court on contribution of homemakers

The MACT, in 2024, had originally awarded compensation of Rs 9.17 lakh in relation to the death of Barnali Samanta Nandi who was a homemaker.

While examining the claim relating to Barnali’s death, the court referred to settled principles recognising the economic and emotional significance of services rendered by homemakers within a family.

The judgment noted that a wife and mother as a homemaker performs countless responsibilities that extend beyond household chores and include care, guidance, and emotional support for family members.

The court stated that no mathematical formula exists for assessing the value of such contributions and that each case must be assessed on its own facts.

The court noted that while domestic help may perform household chores, they cannot replace the care, affection, and selfless support provided by a wife and mother.

Taking into account the family’s social status and the responsibilities shouldered by the deceased, the court concluded that the original award required enhancement.

Accordingly, the court modified the tribunal’s award and directed the insurer to pay compensation of Rs 11 lakh with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.

Dismissing the insurer’s challenge to liability, the court enhanced compensation awarded for the death of the homemaker from Rs 9.17 lakh to Rs 11 lakh along with interest at 6 per cent per annum.

Challenge to compensation for breadwinner rejected

The court also considered a separate appeal concerning the death of Shamit Samanta, who was the sole earning member of the family at the time of the accident.

The insurer challenged the findings on negligence and questioned the assessment of income used for calculating compensation.

However, the court found no reason to interfere with the tribunal’s conclusions and held that the evidence sufficiently established negligent parking by the mini-truck driver.

Finding the compensation awarded for Shamit’s death to be just and reasonable, the court dismissed both the insurer’s appeal and the claimants’ cross-objection seeking further enhancement.

As a result, the award of more than Rs 2.10 crore granted in relation to Shamit’s death was affirmed, while compensation for Barnali’s death was enhanced to Rs 11 lakh.

The judgment reiterates that the value of a homemaker’s labour cannot be reduced to conventional economic calculations and must be meaningfully recognised while determining compensation under motor accident claims law.

(Written by Aparajita Prasad. She is an intern with The Indian Express.)