The Delhi High Court has enhanced the motor accident compensation for an 81-year-old homemaker to Rs 20.79 lakh, ruling that advancing age does not erase the economic value of unpaid domestic work and caregiving within a household.
Justice Anish Dayal increased the compensation by Rs 6,37,307, modifying an earlier tribunal award that had excluded loss of income because the woman had never held salaried employment. The court held that assessing compensation on the assumption that an elderly person ceases to contribute economically is rooted in prejudice and age-based stereotypes.
Rejection of Age-Based Stereotypes
The bench examined whether a homemaker over the age of 70, who has spent decades supporting multiple generations, could be treated merely as a dependent rather than an active contributor. Justice Dayal ruled that no age barrier should restrict the legal recognition of unpaid domestic work when determining compensation.
The court observed that such contributions carry measurable replacement value, even in the absence of wages, commercial agreements, or billing. The bench pointed out that tasks such as cooking, supervising domestic arrangements, assisting relatives with healthcare, or taking care of grandchildren directly benefit the family by saving external expenses on childcare and enabling other relatives to engage in paid employment.
The court cautioned that compensation determinations must remain just and reasonable, emphasizing the need to guard against contemporary biases that undervalue unremunerated household labour performed by older persons.
The Accident and Resulting Disabilities
The claim arose from an incident on February 19, 2019, near the Samaspur bus stand in east Delhi’s Pandav Nagar locality. The victim, who was 74 years old at the time, fell onto the road while trying to board a bus and was run over by the rear wheels of the vehicle.
The severe trauma resulted in a 74 per cent permanent disability across both lower limbs. Surgeons had to amputate her left leg below the knee and remove all the toes from her right foot.
In December 2023, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granted her Rs 14.42 lakh with 7.5 per cent annual interest. However, the tribunal declined to award damages for loss of past or future income, citing her lack of formal employment history and an absence of direct evidence establishing her domestic contributions.
Revised Financial Assessment
Overturning the tribunal’s position on income loss, the High Court pegged her notional monthly income at Rs 16,962, the minimum wage applicable to a skilled worker in Delhi at the time of the incident. Taking into account her prolonged medical care and recurrent hospital stays, the bench awarded Rs 50,886 to cover three months of lost income.
For loss of future earning capacity, the court evaluated her functional disability at 50 per cent and applied an age-appropriate multiplier of five, yielding Rs 5,08,860. The court did not factor in future wage growth prospects because of her age.
The bench also adjusted other non-pecuniary and supportive heads of claim. Attendant charges were raised from Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakh, while compensation for pain and suffering was increased from Rs 75,000 to Rs 1 lakh. In addition, the court allocated Rs 1.30 lakh towards the procurement of an additional prosthetic limb and Rs 75,000 for its ongoing maintenance.
Disbursement Timelines and Procedures
The enhanced compensation of Rs 6,37,307, along with 7.5 per cent interest per annum from the date the petition was filed, must be deposited with the tribunal within four weeks. Out of this enhanced sum, Rs 1,37,307 is to be released directly to the claimant within two weeks of the deposit.
To ensure long-term financial security, the court ordered that the remaining enhanced amount and accrued interest be locked into staggered fixed deposits of Rs 30,000 each, maturing at intervals of three, six, and nine months. The earned interest will be credited periodically to her savings account, and the principal sums will be disbursed upon maturity following routine verification.
The insurance provider was directed to deposit the combined prosthetic allocation of Rs 2.05 lakh separately within six weeks. Those funds will be placed in an interest-yielding fixed deposit and disbursed only upon the submission of an authentic, verified invoice showing payment to a recognized supplier. Any unspent balance from this allocation may be returned to the insurer upon formal application.
