Loss Of Domestic Care: An Additional Head
20. It is in these circumstances, that we deem it appropriate to direct that when a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or this Court is concerned with or a case involving the death of a homemaker, 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 also the disposition towards uniformity, that for the three major heads (the homemaker’s contribution towards smooth functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support for children and loss of spousal support/the support and care of their child who is an adult, for the parents of the deceased) discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, a composite sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be added under the head of ‘loss of domestic care’, provided that all three of these heads are met in the given case. This determination shall be revised by 10%, cumulatively, every three years. It may be clearly stated that this amount of Rs.30,000/- i.e., loss of domestic care is to be taken as a ‘standin’ (basic minimum monthly income) for monthly income in those cases where the homemaker does not have an input into the house, in strictly conventional, monetary terms. In those cases where the homemaker is part of the workforce, the component of loss of domestic care shall be in addition to the monthly income as may be proved before the Tribunal/Courts.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO……………………… OF 2026
(@Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.33915 of 2025)
SHISHU PAL @ SHISH RAM & ORS. Vs SURJEET & ORS.
Author: SANJAY KAROL J.,
Dated: June 11, 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 634
For felicity of reference, this judgment is divided into the following parts:
Index
THE APPEAL ............................................................................................................................ 2
THE ASPECT OF DELAY ........................................................................................................ 3
In the Present facts ................................................................................................................. 3
In General – the inordinate delay ........................................................................................... 4
THE HOME-MAKER: A NATION BUILDER & AN ECONOMIC ENTITY ...................... 17
Judicial Pronouncements ..................................................................................................... 23
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 2 of 36
Quantifying The Contribution-of a Nation Builder ............................................................. 26
Loss Of Domestic Care: An Additional Head ...................................................................... 29
Application to the present facts............................................................................................ 31
DIRECTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 33
Leave granted.
THE APPEAL
2. This appeal primarily presents two vexing issues. The claimant’s struggle
for compensation is two-and-a-half decades old. In other words, delay is front and
centre in this case. The other issue presented is the monetisation of a homemaker’s
efforts since the deceased (wife of the claimant) was a homemaker. We may only
ask ourselves when in Indian society, the ‘woman of the house’ is called the
‘grihaswamini’, then why n are we still groping in the dark about the questions
such as the one present in this case.
3. The fact of the accident having taken place on 25th November 2001 while
the deceased was on her way to Fatehabad, from Sirsa due to the rash and
negligent driving of respondent no.1, is not in dispute. The Tribunal1 allowed
Claim Petition No.126/MACT of 2001, preferred by her legal heirs by order dated
18th December 2003 and awarded Rs.2,42,000/- only. The claimants approached
the High Court2 seeking enhancement thereof. A learned Single Judge allowing
FAO-1627-2004 vide order dated 11th December 2024 enhanced the said
compensation to Rs. 8,43,400/- along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing
of the claim petition. It was further clarified that should the said payment be not
made within three months, the rate of interest would stand enhanced to 9% per
annum and further if the amount is not paid within six months, enhancement shall
be with interest @ 12% per annum.
1 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa
2 FAO No.1627 of 2004
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 3 of 36
4. Still dissatisfied, the claimants are before us. At the outset we may observe
that the increasing scales of rate of interest awarded by the High Court seems to
be a recognition of the peculiar facts and circumstances in which this case
remained on the file of the High Court for twenty years. While issuing notice it is
this number that caught our attention and as such, we called for the records of the
Courts below.
THE ASPECT OF DELAY
In the Present facts
5. It appears from the perusal of records of the High Court that the file of this
case amongst thousands of others was either partially burnt or completely
destroyed in a fire that occurred in 2011. There was also an earlier incident in the
year 1996 but since that is from a time prior to the present case, we need not
consider that. The issue of reconstruction of files repeatedly engaged the attention
of the learned judges of that Court on the administrative side. Various directions
were issued from time to time. The latest direction dated 21st February 2024
records that despite various efforts having been made, approximately 2200 cases,
of which no record whatsoever could be traced out , were ordered to be removed
from the list of pending reconstruction cases and directed to be placed in a
separate file awaiting the possibility of any intervention on the part of the counsel
for the parties. Such of those cases in which some record or other, could be found,
were directed to be listed before the concerned benches. Perhaps the present case
was one in the latter category for it came to be decided shortly after these orders
and the file does not reflect any steps having been taken by the counsel for the
claimants.
6. The appeal was filed before the High Court was filed in 2004. The
unfortunate fire incident happened in 2011. The case came to be decided at the
fag-end of 2024. Naturally, two questions arise, one why was the case arising out
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 4 of 36
of a beneficial legislation remained pending in 2011 when it was filed in 2004?
Two, still further, between 2011 and 2024 is a period of 14 years – does the
reconstruction of a file or number of files, takes 14 years?
7. The unfortunate circumstances aside, the Court must be aware of the fact
that such large amounts of delay reflect purely on an institution which is
otherwise tasked with the responsibility to adjudicate the rights of the parties.
Although it is never possible to fully compensate for the loss of a person who has
been an integral part of a person’s family, the idea of ‘just and fair’ compensation
requires that an amount of money be paid to the claimants that would, as far as
possible, place them in a position as if the unfortunate incident of the death of
their loved one had not taken place. For whatever reason, when this takes twenty
years, the suffering is only compounded further.
In General – the inordinate delay
8. At this stage we may observe that long delay, while may be somewhat
justified in this case, we have found, is a regular feature in motor accidents claim
cases. True it is that, delay does not fit into mathematical calculation which would
tell us that, pendency of a particular case beyond a certain point becomes
questionable but for the purpose of general understanding, it may be so
considered across the board that, such a case arising out of either an injury or
death, both being entirely, a difficult set of circumstances, and from a beneficially
oriented legislation, should not be pending at the level of the High Court for a
period greater than four years. Here itself we may add that even this number can
be justified only for those High Courts that endure high pendency or a large
number of vacancies.
9. A Bench presided over by one of us (Sanjay Karol J.) sitting in different
combination, has had the opportunity to adjudicate over a hundred appeals in this
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 5 of 36
area. Following is a tabular representation of the appeals referred to above along
with the time taken by the Courts at all the three levels to decide the matter:
S.
No.
Date of
Decision
Name of the
parties
Case no. CORAM (JJ.)
TIME TAKEN BY COURTS
NAME OF
THE HIGH
COURT
TC HC SC
State of Uttar Pradesh
1. 11.02.25 Sanjay Rajpoot Vs
Ram Singh &Ors
C.A. No. 2321 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
1 year
6 months
2 years
9 months
6 months Allahabad
2. 11.02.25 Deepak Kumar &
Ors. Vs Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors.
C.A. No. 2677 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
Approx.
5 years
8 months
Approx.
9 months
1 year
6 months
Allahabad
3. 05.05.25 Vijay Devi & Ors
Vs. Pramod & Ors
C.A. No. 7179 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
1 year
4 months
12 years
8 months
4 months
12 days
Allahabad
4. 19.05.25 Vimla Singh & Ors.
Vs. Rakesh Kumar
Gupta and Anr
C.A. No. 7116 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Joymalya Bagchi
2 years
2 months
3 years
1 month
7 months Allahabad
5. 14.07.25 Pradeep Kumar
Tripathi Vs. Satish
Kumar and Ors
C.A. No7737 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
4 years
11 months
5 days
8 years
6 months
23 days
10 months
9 days
Allahabad
6. 17.11.25 Priti Jaiswal and
Ors. Vs The New
India Assurance Co
Ltd And Ors
C.A.No 15227 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
S.C. Sharma
5 years
07 months
17 days
6 years
8 months
20 days
2 months
23 Days
Allahabad
7. 24.02.26 Naseema and Ors
Vs. Rajendra Singh
and others
C.A.No.3595 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
AG Masih
7 months
5 days
17 years
11 months
26 days
1 year
4 months
26 days
Allahabad
State of Andhra Pradesh
8. 01.12.25 Pamba
Ramanjamma &
Ors. Vs The
Assistant
Commissioner
Endowments &
Anr.
C.A. Nos. 15222-23
of 2026
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
7 months,
15 days
1 year, 9
months,
25 days
3 months
28 days
Andhra
Pradesh
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 6 of 36
State of Maharashtra
9. 06.05.25 Nanasaheb Ranba
Patil Vs. Iffco-
Tokio General
Insurance Co. Ltd.&
Anr
C.A. No. 7163 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
5 years
3 months
10 years
7 months
4 months
18 days
Bombay
10. 09.05.25 Akshay @ Vikas
Ramesh Chavan vs
Kailas Vithalrao
Shinde and Anr.
C.A. No. 7197 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
2 years
3 months
4 years
4 months
3 months Bombay
11. 19.05.25 Yuvraj Vs Shaikh
Habib Shaikh
Ahmed & Ors.
C.A. No. 7163 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Joymalya
Bagchi
2 years
2 months
6 years
5 months
7 months
14 days
Bombay
State of West Bengal
12. 17.02.25 Jakaria Mondal @
Jakai @ Jikai Vs
The National
Insurance Co.Ltd. &
Anr.
C.A. No. 2633 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
Not given Not
given
Not
given
Kolkata
13. 10.03.26 Jyotsna Roy and
Anr. Vs. The
National Insurance
Co. Ltd and Anr.
C.A. No.3591 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
1 year
2 months
18 days
5 years
2 months
14 days
1 year
4 months
24 days
Kolkata
State of Chhattisgarh
14. 14.07.25 Sunaina Verma &
Ors Vs. Ahmad
Niyazi and Ors
C.A. No. 7738 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
4 year
8 months
8 years
1 month
6 months
11 days
Chhattisgarh
15. 18.07.25 Smt. Ganga Devi
Gede & Ors Vs.
Chandra Kumar
Sahu and Ors
C.A. No. 9562 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
2 years
1 month
6 years
5 months
4 months
15 days
Chhattisgarh
16. 06.10.25 Smt. Shanti Bai
Sahu & Ors. Vs
Ahmad Niyazi &
Ors.
C.A. No. 13557 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
4 years
7 months
25 days
8 years
1 month
11 days
9 months Chhattisgarh
17. 02.02.26 Akhilendra Pratap
Singh Vs Monu
Chouhan And Ors
C.A. No.1561of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
2 years
10 months
3 days
6 years
3 months
8 days
75 days Chhattisgarh
18. 12.02.26 Pradeep Agrawal
vs. Manoj Agarwal
& Anr.
C.A. Nos. 3597-98
of 2026
Sanjay Karol
N Kotiswar Singh
1 year
11 months
26 days
8 years
11 months
1 year
21 days
Chhattisgarh
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 7 of 36
Union Territory of Delhi
19. 05.03.25 Neelam Sharma &
ors. Vs Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd.
& ors.
C.A. Nos. 3632-33
of 2025
Sanjay Karol
Manmohan
7 years 5
months
6 years 3 years Delhi
20. 19.08.25 Sanjeev Malhotra
and Anr. Vs The
New India
Assurance Co. Ltd.
And ors.
C.A. Nos. 10840-41
of 2024
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Mehta
2 years 2
months 19
days
5 years
4 months
19 days
10 months
26 days
Delhi
21. 05.12.25 Soni Sharma Vs
Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. & ors.
C.A. No.15224 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
4 Years 6
Months 28
Days
6 years
10 months
25 Days
10 Months
20 Days
Delhi
State of Gujarat
22. 06.05.25 Iffco Tokio General
Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs Pinkyben & Ors.
C.A. No. 7192 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
11 years
10 months
4 years
9 months
1 year 6
months
Gujarat
23. 08.08.25 Hitesh Nagjibhai
Patel Vs Bababhai
Nagjibhai Rabari
and Anr.
C.A. No. 10278 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
8 years
3 months
2 years
6 months
5 months
6 days
Gujarat
24. 01.09.25 New India
Assurance
Company Ltd Vs
Hansaben
Sureshbhai
Prajapati And Ors.
C.A. No. 12176 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
5 years
3 months
21 days
3 years
9 months
18 days
4 months Gujarat
25. 10.02.26 Isha Abbasbhai @
Abha Saicha & Ors.
Vs. Sbi General
Insurance Co. Ltd &
Anr.
C.A. No. 3378 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
5 years
11 months
13 days
4 years
4 months
4 months
18 days
Gujarat
26. 17.03.26 Faridaben Mahebub
Hajiya & Anr. Vs
The National
Insurance Company
Limited. & Ors.
C.A. No. 8041 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
11 years
2 months
27 days
16 years
11 months
2 days
4 months
11 days
Gujarat
27. 23.04.26 Bhatliben versus
The National
Insurance Co. Ltd.
And Ors.
C.A. No. 7944 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
V M Pancholi
14 years
5 months
16 days
11 years
3 months
5 days
1 year 5
days
Gujarat
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 8 of 36
State of Assam
28. 17.02.26 Manomanti
Chouhan and Anr.
Vs. Oriental
Insurance Company
Ltd. And Ors.
C.A. Nos .3877-
3878 of 2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
5 years
3 months
26 days
1 year
11 months
4 days
4 years
1 month
15 days
Guwahati
State of Jharkhand
29. 3.11.25 Sunita Devi & ors.
Vs.
Shakti Singh & ors.
C.A. No. 13911 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N Kotiswar Singh
4 year
2 days
10 years
4 months
24 days
3 months
21 days
Jharkhand
State of Karnataka
30. 11.02.25 Vijayalaxmi @
Roopa vs. Shenoy
vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd.
C.A. No. 2320 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manmohan
3 years 5 years 9 months Karnataka
31. 11.02.25 Nur Ahamad
Abdulsab Kanavi vs
Abdul Munaf &
Ors.
C.A. No. of 2322
of 2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
5 years 2 years
6 months
5 months Karnataka
32. 11.02.25 Jayalakshmi Vs. K.
Abhayachandra &
Ors
C.A. No. 2315 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
More than
5 Years
3 years
3.5 months
2 years Karnataka
33. 11.02.25 Saalibai v The
Divisional Manager
C.A. Nos. 2311-12
of 2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
8 years
3 months
7 months 1 year Karnataka
34. 28.02.25 Prabhavathi & ors
vs. The Managing
Director Bangalore
Metropolitan
Transport
Corporation
C.A. Nos. 3465-
3466 of 2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
1 year
2 months
2 years
10 months
1 Years
11 months
Karnataka
35. 02.04.25 Ronald D Cunha
Vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd.&
Anr.
C.A. No. 5335 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
3 years
4 months
5 years
2 months
1 year
5 months
Karnataka
36. 02.04.25 Reshma & ors vs.
United India
Insurance Company
Limited & Anr
C.A. No. 5334 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
1 year 1 year
7 months
3 years
7 months
Karnataka
37. 22.04.25 Susheelabai & anr.
Vs. The Divisional
Controller N. W. K.
R. T. C. & Anr.
C.A. No. 5403 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Misra
4 years
7 months
3 years
2 months
2 years
11 months
Karnataka
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 9 of 36
38. 02.05.25 V.N.S. Prabakar
Rao & ors vs. The
Reliance General
Insurance Company
Ltd. & Ors.
C.A. No. 7177 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
4 years 7 years
1 month
8 months Karnataka
39. 05.05.25 Suresh Vs. Senthil
B. & Anr.
C.A. No. 7182 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
2 years
10 months
4 years
2 months
2 months
16 days
Karnataka
40. 06.05.25 Sweeta & Anr. Vs
the Divisional
Manager & Ors.
C.A. Nos. 7195-96
of 2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
3 years
4 months
3 years
6 months
7 months Karnataka
41. 06.05.25 Aleem Ulla khan
Vs. ponnuswamy &
anr.
C.A. Nos. 7193-94
of 2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
4 years
10 months
5 years
3 months
11 months Karnataka
42. 19.05.25 Chandrakala D.R.
Vs Shivaraju & Anr.
C.A. No. 6979 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Joymalya Bagchi
1 year
7 months
More
than 2
years
7 months
25 days
Karnataka
43. 14.08.25 Akkamahadevi and
Anr. Vs Prabhuraj
And Anr
C.A. No. 11402 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
6 years
6 months
24 days
4 years
2 months
11 days
4 months
10 days
Karnataka
44. 19.08.25 Lalita & Ors. Vs
The Divisional
Manager
N.W.K.R.T.C. &
Anr.
C.A. Nos. 10842-
43 of 2025
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Mehta
2 years
7 months
6 years
11 months
9 months
17 days
Karnataka
45. 11.09.25 Chandra Mogera
Vs. Santhosh A
Ganachari & Anr.
C.A. No. 2183 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N Kotiswar Singh
2 years
9 months
12 days
2 years
4 months
7 days
8 months
24 days
Karnataka
46. 26.09.25 Mallesh M. Linga
Vs. Raju M. And
Anr
C.A. No. 12714 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
4 years
9 months
25 days
2 years
2 months
17 days
5 months
29 days
Karnataka
47. 14.10.25 Reshma rep by her
next friend Shobha
Shobha Vs. Shri.
Dajiba Krishna Lad
& Anr.
C.A. No. 13627 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
1 year
5 months,
7 days
5 years
11 months,
29 days
7 months,
8 days
Karnataka
48. 06.11.25 Sri Pramod vs Sujay
Kamath & Ors
C.A. No. 13815 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
2 years
8 months
18 days
1 year
9 months
19 days
9 months,
8 days
Karnataka
49. 11.11.25 Sh. Irappa S/o
Yallappa Mali &
Anr. Vs. Royal
Sundaram Alliance
C.A. No. 15376 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Vipul M. Pancholi
1 year
8 months,
23 days
2 years
4 months,
9 days
8 months,
23 days
Karnataka
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 10 of 36
Insurance co. Ltd. &
Anr.
50. 09.12.25 Mohammed
Mukhtar M D Vs.
Abdul Moiddin &
Ors.
C.A. No. 15225 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
2 years
2 months
7 Days
8 years
2 months
25 Days
2 years
4 months
20 Days
Karnataka
51. 11.03.26 Smt. Kokila Vani
K.J. and Ors. Vs.
The Divisional
Manager M/S
United India
Insurance Company
Ltd and Ors.
C.A. No. 3637 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
1 year
6 months
19 days
2 years
6 months
6 days
4 years
11 months
5 days
Karnataka
52. 16.04.26 Basamma vs.
Rangappa & Anr.
C.A. No. 7934 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A G Masih
2 years
7 months
19 day
1 month 4 months
5 days
Karnataka
State of Kerala
53. 11.02.25 Sona (Minor) thr.
Next friend Vs.
Manual C.M & Anr.
C.A. No. 2316 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
2 years
8 months
3 years
4 months
1 year
10 months
Kerala
54. 06.05.25 Sreejith vs. Abdul
Rasheed & Ors.
C.A. No. 7191 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
2 years
8 months
6 years
5 months
2 years
3 months
Kerala
55. 21.07.25 Jiju V. Ganga Vs.
Tony Paul and Ors
C.A. No. 9638 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
6 years
2 months
10 years
4 months
10 months
3 days
Kerala
56. 07.11.25 Sudheesh M Vs.
MK Purushotam &
Ors.
C.A. No. 13818 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
7 years 8
days
4 years
3 months
22 days
1 year
3 months
11 days
Kerala
57. 13.11.25 Manoj Vs Satheesh
Kumar (dead)
through LRS. And
Anr.
C.A. No. 14493 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
NV Anjaria
10 years
25 days
8 years
5 months
20 days
1 year
6 months
Kerala
58. 28.11.25 Baiju Vs The United
India Insurance
Company Limited
and Ors.
SLP (C) No. 15134
of 2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
5 years
11 months
20 days
10 years
03 months
12 days
2 months
15 days
Kerala
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 11 of 36
59. 04.12.25 Jayaraj Vs The
Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd and Ors.
C.A. No. 15382 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N Kotiswar Singh
7 years
3 months
26 days
3 years
11 months
19 days
4 months
19 days
Kerala
60. 18.12.25 Nithin Varghese vs.
The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd
C.A. No.15377 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
9 Years
8 months
16 Days
9 years
5 months
13 Days
3 months
26 Days
Kerala
State of Madhya Pradesh
61. 24.01.25 Sadhana Tomar &
Ors vs Ashok
Kushwaha & Ors
C.A. No. 3763 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
1 year
10 months
3 years
10 months
1 year
10 months
Madhya
Pradesh
62. 07.02.25 Jitendra v Sadiya &
Ors.
C.A. No. 2209 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
5 years
8½ months
2 years 12 months Madhya
Pradesh
63. 11.02.25 Vinayak v Manohar
Singh & Ors
C.A. No. 2319 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
8 years
3 months
7 months 1 year Madhya
Pradesh
64. 11.02.25 Karuna Parmar vs
Prakash Sinha &
Ors
C.A. Nos. 2317-18
of 2025
Sanjay Karol
Manmohan
5 years
1 month
1 year
10 months
1 year
10 months
Madhya
Pradesh
65. 03.03.25 Lalman Shah @
Lalman Sahu vs.
The New India
Assurance
Company Ltd & ors
C.A. No. 4492 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
KV Viswanathan
6 years
8 months
1 year 8 months Madhya
Pradesh
66. 18.03.25 Ashok Kumar Vs
Chhote Lal Kol &
Ors.
C.A. No. 4378 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
4 years
11 months
1 year
3 months
1 year 6
months
Madhya
Pradesh
67. 24.03.25 Indra Kumar vs.
Nabbu & Ors.
C.A. No. 5236 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
4 years
9 months
5 years
6 months
4 months
27 days
Madhya
Pradesh
68. 24.03.25 Smt. Suman & Anr.
Vs Bhuru khan &
Ors
C.A. No. 5238 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
1 month
22 days
10 years 11 months Madhya
Pradesh
69. 05.05.25 Chandani & Ors Vs.
Ramdayal Patel &
ors
C.A. No. 7181 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
1 year
4 months
4 years
3 months
2 months
23 days
Madhya
Pradesh
70. 14.08.25 Subran Singh and
Ors Vs. Divisional
Manager, The New
India Assurance Co
Ltd. & Ors
C.A. No. 11401 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
4 years 1
month
8 months
16 days
8 months Madhya
Pradesh
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 12 of 36
71. 19.08.25 Ashok Choubey Vs.
Dashrath Kewat and
Ors.
C.A. No. 10839 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Mehta
3 years
9 months
20 days
3 years
6 months
7 days
11
months
30 days
Madhya
Pradesh
72. 26.08.25 Keshkali and Ors.
Praveen Swarup Vs
Manish Kumar and
Ors.
C.A. No. 11896 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Mehta
9 months
15 days
12 years
8 months
5 months
21 days
Madhya
Pradesh
73. 26.09.25 Vikram Motwani vs
Santosh Sharma
(Shukla) and anr.
C.A. No. 13524 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
5 Years
5 months
21 days
1 year
4 months
20 days
9 months
9 days
Madhya
Pradesh
74. 13.10.25 Dhaniya Bai and
Ors. Vs. Awadhraj
Singh B Argahi
C.A. No. 13868 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
2 Years
10 Months
8 Days
6 Years
7 Months
6 Days
9 months
26 days
Madhya
Pradesh
75. 3.11.25 Ku. Aarti & Ors.
Vs. Udayveer Singh
& Ors.
C.A. No. 14856 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N Kotiswar Singh
1 year
4 months
6 days
9 years
and
17 days
7 months
and
2 days
Madhya
Pradesh
76. 17.11.25 Rajendra
Chakrawarti Vs
Dinesh Kumar
Yadav and Anr
C.A. No. 14496 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
S.C. Sharma
5 years,
10 months
18 days
2 years
3 months
13 days
10 months,
18 days
Madhya
Pradesh
77. 09.02.26 Dwarka & Ors. vs
Bhairam
C.A. No. 3388 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
Ujjal Bhuyan
2 years
26 days
7 months 2 months
27 days
Madhya
Pradesh
78. 11.02.26 Sushila Dhurve and
Ors. Vs. Sukhlal
Dhurve and Ors.
C.A. No. 3548 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
1 year
11 months
6 days
3 years
10 months
14 days
2 months
3 days
Madhya
Pradesh
79. 27.02.26 Kashi Bhumia and
Ors Vs. IFFCO
Tokyo General
Insurance Co. Ltd
and ors
C.A. No. 3592 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
1 year
29 days
9 months
29 days
2 months
16 days
Madhya
Pradesh
80. 23.04.26 Satendra Singh Vs.
Urvijay Prasad
Upadhyaya and Ors.
C.A. No. 7943 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
V. M. Pancholi
7 years
11 months
11 days
2 years
11 months
22 days
5 months
17 days
Madhya
Pradesh
State of Madras
81. 05.03.25 R. Rabhu Vs. M/s
United India
Insurance Company
& Anr.
C.A. No. 3596 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manmohan
1 year
11 months
2 years
5 months
1 year
4 months
Madras
82. 25.03.25 R. Santosh & Ors.
Vs The Managing
Director,
Metropolitan
C.A. Nos. 5341- 42
of 2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
2 years
6 months
1 year
3 months
7 months Madras
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 13 of 36
Transport
Corporation Ltd.
83. 01.04.25 P. Dhanalakshmi vs.
M/s. Reliance
General Insurance
Co. Ltd
C.A. Nos. 4582-
4583 of 2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
9 years
10 months
3 years
3 months
2 years
1 month
Madras
84. 05.05.25 Thamilarasi & Anr.
Vs M. Balakrishnan
& ors
C.A. No. 7180 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
5 years
approx..
10 years
approx..
3 months
5 days
Madras
85. 21.05.25 C.Karunakaran Vs
SRM Transport
India Pvt Ltd & Anr
C.A. No. 7162 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Joymalya Bagchi
2 years
12 days
5 years
11 months
5 months
3 days
Madras
86. 01.9.25 S. Mumtaj Vs. M/s
JSM Logistics
Private Limited And
Anr.
C.A. No. 12211 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
6 years
8 months
22 days
2 years
10 months
11 days
3 months
11 days
Madras
87. 26.09.25 Subramanian &
Anr. Vs. The Tamil
Nadu State
Transport
Corporation Ltd
C.A. No. 12716 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
1 month
18 days
9 year
9 months
24 days
4 months
15 days
Madras
88. 03.02.26 Kothandaraman &
Anr. Vs. Rajasekar
& Anr.
C.A. Nos. 3625 -26
of 2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
2 years
4 months
1 day
1 year
10 months
10 days
1 year
4 months
3 days
Madras
State of Orissa
89. 07.02.25 Harekrishna
Mahanta v
Himadari Sahu &
Anr.
C.A. No.2204 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
3 years 3 years 2 years
2 months
Orissa
90. 20.05.25 Rasmita Sahu &
Ors. Vs The
Divisional Manager
& Anr.
C.A. No. 7198 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Mehta
1 year
5 months
5 years
4 months
1 year
10 months
Orissa
91. 14.07.25 Lili Kumar Swain
and Ors vs. Branch
manager Royal
Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd
C.A. No. 7739 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
9 years
1 month
20 days
1 year
5 months
12 days
4 months
23 days
Orissa
92. 28.07.25 Parbati Sahoo &
ors. vs The Oriental
Insurance Company
Limited & Anr.
C.A. No. 9877 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
13 years
3 months
6 months
6 days
4 months
24 days
Orissa
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 14 of 36
93. 12.11.25 Sebati Nath & ors
vs. Shriram General
Insurance Co. Ltd
C.A. No. 14497 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Vipul. M. Pancholi
7 years
1 month
2 days
2 years
1 month,
5 days
5 months,
23 days
Orissa
State of Punjab and Haryana
94. 10.02.25 Deepak Singh alias
Deepak Chauhan v.
Mukesh Kumar &
ors.
C.A. No. 2255 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manmohan
Not given Not
given
Not
given
P & H High
Court
95. 11.02.25 Seema Rani & Ors v
Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. & Ors
C.A. No. 2323 OF
2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
1 year 6 years
9 months
4 months P & H High
Court
96. 17.02.25 Krishna & ors. V.
Sanjay Kumar &
ors.
C.A. No. 2632 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N Kotiswar Singh
2 years
1 month
1 year
3 months
5 months P & H High
Court
97. 25.03.25 Kamlesh &
ors. Vs
Zile Singh & ors.
C.A. No. 5237 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
11 months
30 days
9 years
9 months
2 years
1 month
P & H High
Court
98. 28.03.25 Savita & ors. Vs.
Ajay & ors.
C.A. No. 4470 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
1 year
3 months
6 years 10 months P & H High
Court
99. 05.05.25 Kamlesh & Ors. Vs.
Dhanna Singh &
Anr.
C.A. No. 7178 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
11 months
26 days
3 years
11 months
5 months
4 days
P & H High
Court
100. 23.05.25 Nirmal Gupta Vs.
C. Roshan Lal &
Ors
C.A No. 7467 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Joymalya Bagchi
More than
3 years
13 years
11 months
5 months
8 days
P & H High
Court
101. 03.06.25 The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Mansab Ali &
Ors
C.A. No. 7371 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
2 years
6 months
1 year
1 month
3 months
24 days
P & H High
Court
102. 26.09.25 Satish Kumar and
Ors Vs. Rakesh
Kumar and Ors
C.A. No. 15378 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
1 year
10 months
28 days
17 years
11 months
2 days
2 months
12 days
P & H High
Court
103. 09.12.25 Smt. Krishana &
Ors. Vs. Jagat Singh
& Anr.
C.A. No. 15226 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
2 years
8 months,
17 days
8 years
2 months,
14 days
1 Year
10 Months,
4 Days
P & H High
Court
104. 11.12.25 Anu Suia and Anr.
Vs. Pepsu Road
Transport
Corporation and
Anr.
C.A. No. 15390 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N Kotiswar Singh
2 Years
3 Months
20 Days
18 Years
9 Months
16 Days
1 Year
2 Months
24 Days
(Ist
Appeal)
P & H High
Court
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 15 of 36
4 Years
5 Months
18 days
(2nd
Appeal)
105. 13.01.26 Mohit Garg vs Hari
Ram, since
deceased now
represented by LR
and Ors
C.A. No. 1664 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
3 years
8 months,
20 days
3 years
8 months
25 days
3 years,
3 months,
4 days
P & H High
Court
106. 09.02.26 Rinku Vs. Umar
Mohammed and
Anr.
C.A. No. 3517 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
Ujjal Bhuyan
5 years
11 months
15 days
5 years
8 months
11 days
8 months
5 days
P & H High
Court
107. 09.02.26 Sukha Singh and
Anr. Vs. Iffco
Tokyo General
Insurance Company
Ltd & Ors.
C.A. No. 3421 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
Ujjal Bhuyan
1 year
4 months
23 days
1 year
4 months
3 days
3 years
4 months
P & H High
Court
108. 11.02.26 Sunil Kumar @
Shina Vs. Hanuman
Singh and Ors.
C.A. No. 3593 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
1 year
9 months
1 day
12 years
17 days
4 months
2 days
P & H High
Court
109. 13.02.26 Rattan Lal Singh &
Anr. Vs. Ashok
Kumar and Ors
C.A. No. 3549 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
N Kotiswar Singh
1 year
9 months
15 days
6 years
5 months
11 days
6 months
30 days
P & H High
Court
110. 19.02.26 Pahlad and Anr. Vs.
Jagatpal & Ors.
C.A. No. 3387 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
2 years
29 days
8 years
8 months
12 days
1 year
11 months
13 days
P & H High
Court
111. 27.02.26 Raj Rani and Others
Vs. Karan and
others
C.A. No. 3590 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
5 months
26 days
9 months
27 days
6 months
1 day
P & H High
Court
112. 17.04.26 Sushma & Ors. Vs.
Rinku & Anr.
C.A. No. 7835 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
2 years
2 months
28 days
3 years
9 months
28 days
5 months
4 days
P & H High
Court
State of Rajasthan
113. 10.02.25 Prakash Chand
Sharma Vs.
Rambabu Saini &
Anr.
C.A. No. 2254 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manmohan
Not given Not
given
Not
given
Rajasthan
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 16 of 36
114. 28.03.25 Mohammad Maruf
Khan & Anr. Vs.
ICICI Lombard
General Insurance
Company Ltd & Ors
C.A. No. 4472 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
Round 1
2 years
1 month
Round 2
3 months
5 months
10 months
6 years
3 months
Rajasthan
115. 14.07.25 Rajput Gayatri Devi
and Ors Vs.
Radheshyam and
Ors
C.A. Nos. 7740-41
of 2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
2 years
4 months
25 days
13 years
11 months
19 days
4 months Rajasthan
116. 22.07.25 Rekha Sharma and
Ors v. Khalil
Ahmad and Anr.
C.A. Nos. 9669-70
of 2025
Sanjay Karol
P K Mishra
2 years
3 months
24 days
6 years
1 month
8 days
5 months
19 days
Rajasthan
117. 7.11.25 Sayar & Ors. Vs.
Ramkaran & ors.
C.A. No. 13912 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
N. Kotiswar Singh
1 Year
4 Months
19 Days
15 Years
8 Months
17 Days
3 Months
10 Days
Rajasthan
118. 17.11.25 Kirosata Devi and
Ors. Vs Ram ji Lal
and Ors
C.A. No. 14857 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
S.C. Sharma
1 year 11
months, 22
days
10 years,
4 months,
22 days
7 months
28 days
Rajasthan
119. 11.03.26 Amar Singh Vs.
Rajendra Singh and
Anr.
C.A. No. 3596 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
5 years
11 months
15 days
5 years
8 months
11 days
8 months
5 days
Rajasthan
120. 24.04.26 Smt. Nargis
Siddique Vs.
Oriental Insurance
Co.Ltd and Ors.
C.A. No. 7942 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
10 years
10 months
26 days
15 years
7 months
18 days
4 months
5 days
Rajasthan
State of Telangana
121. 11.02.25 Shyam Prasad
Nagalla & Ors. V.s
The Andhra Pradesh
State Road
Transport
Corporation & Ors.
C.A. No. 2324 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
PK Mishra
2 years 9 years 2 months Telangana
122. 05.05.25 S. Rajkumar Vs.
M/s kaven and
kamakshi travels &
anr.
C.A. No. 7183 of
2025
Sanjay Karol
Manoj Misra
2 years
11 months
10 years,
10 months
2 months
8 days
Telangana
123. 20.04.26 P.Jashwanth Vs.
United India
Insurance Company
Ltd. & Anr.
C.A. No. 7868 of
2026
Sanjay Karol
A.G. Masih
5 years
1 month
25 days
6 years
2 months
10 days
3 months
4 days
Telangana
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 17 of 36
We may record that overall, an unhappy picture emerges. In almost 50% of
the matters, pendency was over four years. It is not even for a moment our
consideration that the Courts are solely responsible for such delay; but we are of
the view that the Courts must remain vigilant with regard to the pendency of such
cases. Adjournments should only be granted for genuine reasons. What those
genuine reasons may be, we cannot list out, but one of the foremost considerations
that must be the force of expediency in such matters is the incidence of interest
that may befall the insurance company/owner/driver. Quite often it may so
happen that the interest when computed is equal to a substantial percentage of the
award itself which in itself is an indication that an institution-wide remedy is
called for in such matters.
THE HOME-MAKER: A NATION BUILDER & AN ECONOMIC ENTITY
10. In our view, 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 earning members are in fact solely dependent on the
homemaker but alas, this reality does not receive the acknowledgment it
deserves. Efforts have been made across fields to some success but yet undeniably
the road is still long.
We notice that as far back as 1920, a hundred-and-four-years ago, the noted
economist Sir Cecil Pigou, in his work The Economics of Welfare observed:–
“… the services rendered by women enter into the dividend when they are
rendered in exchange for wages, whether in the factory or in the home, but
do not enter into it when they are rendered by mothers and wives
gratuitously to their own families. Thus, if a man marries his housekeeper
or his cook, the national dividend is diminished.”
11. This idea has since engaged the attention of economists and sociologists,
consistently. Viewed from the lens of both fields, its undervalued nature, is a
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 18 of 36
common strand, whether it be tasks that are considered ‘everyday’ such as
cooking, cleaning and other similar activities that undoubtedly support the paid
workforce by enabling economic productivity, yet they are in themselves not
recognised as productive activities for the purposes of measures such as GDP.
To put the enormity of what is missed out by these conventional methods, it may
be noted that every day, around sixteen billion hours individual are devoted to
unpaid domestic work and care.3 The General Recommendation No.17 issued in
the Tenth Session in 1991 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women deserves recall here:
“Affirming that the measurement and quantification of the unremunerated
domestic activities of women, which contribute to development in each
country, will help to reveal the de facto economic role of women,
Convinced that such measurement and quantification offers a basis for the
formulation of further policies related to the advancement of women,
Noting the discussions of the Statistical Commission, at its twenty-fifth
session, on the current revision of the System of National Accounts on the
development of statistics on women,
Recommends that States parties:
(a) Encourage and support research and experimental studies to measure
and value the unremunerated domestic activities of women; for example,
by conducting time-use surveys as part of their national household survey
programmes and by collecting statistics disaggregated by gender on time
spent on activities both in the household and on the labour market;
(b) Take steps, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the
Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women, to
quantify and include the unremunerated domestic activities of women in
the gross national product;
(c) Include in their reports submitted under article 18 of the Convention
information on the research and experimental studies undertaken to
measure and value unremunerated domestic activities, as well as on the
progress made in the incorporation of the unremunerated domestic
activities of women in national accounts.”
Another computation, specifically in the Indian context, is the Time Use
Survey conducted in 2019 which highlights the extent of unpaid domestic and
caregiving work, particularly undertaken by women. Women aged between 15–
3 https://ilostat.ilo.org/topics/unpaid-work/measuring-unpaid-domestic-and-carework/#:~:
text=Every%20day%2C%20more%20than%2016,based%20inequalities
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 19 of 36
59 years spend over seven hours daily on unpaid domestic tasks, compared to
less than three hours by men. On an average, women perform 2.6 times more
unpaid caregiving/domestic work, even when they are otherwise contributing
economically. This one-sided scenario is probably one of the reasons why the
country has low female labour force participation at 31.7%, since the societal
framework generally presumes such responsibilities to be automatically falling
upon women. Women’s unpaid caregiving work is estimated to contribute 15 -
17% of India’s GDP, yet it remains unpaid and unrecognised4. Efforts have been
made to address this gap by methods such as the replacement cost approach
which, as the name suggests, pertains to calculating economic impact of hiring
help to undertake those activities, or through the opportunity cost approach
which considers the income foregone by a homemaker by not participating in
the labour market. The undervaluing in economic terms emanates from an
abiding sense of fidelity to stereotypical gender roles. The attempt to ascribe
value for therefore is not simpliciter an attempt to assign monetary worth
therefore making the endless efforts of a homemaker more recognizable and
calculable but also it is challenging and redefining what is understood as
valuable.
12. It must also be observed that this economic shift of valuing a homemaker’s
efforts is not limited only to monetary aspects. There has been a shift in
sensibilities - a married woman who takes care of the house is no longer called a
housewife and has now been elevated to the deserved status of homemaker in
recognition of the multitudes of facets that her presence in the home covers. The
term ‘housewife’ has been present for centuries with its earliest use being recorded
in the year 12255 whereas the word ‘homemaker’ is relatively newer, being traced
4 https://www.undp.org/india/blog/who-cares-making-care-everyones-work
5 https://www.oed.com/dictionary/housewife_n?tl=true
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 20 of 36
back to somewhere in the 1860s6. It may be true that Judiciary has made a
conscious effort to shift its use to the latter term but in common use the
stereotypical earlier term still continues with a ratio of 4:1. Although this shift in
terminology has been seen in earlier judgments, we would like to note that this
Court in its recent handbook on combating gender stereotypes7 stated that the use
of the term ‘housewife’ would be incorrect and instead the word ‘homemaker’
should be used. In the same book, it has also been noted as follows:
Stereotype Reality
Women who do not work outside the
home do not contribute to the
household or contribute very little in
comparison to their husbands.
Women who are homemakers
perform unpaid domestic labour
(such as cooking, cleaning, washing,
household management and
accounts) and care work (such as
caring for the elderly and for
children, helping children with their
homework and extracurriculars). The
unpaid labour performed by women
not only contributes to the
household’s quality of life but also
results in monetary savings. Women
who are homemakers contribute to
the household to an equal (or greater)
extent.
13. Apart from the fact that contribution of women to the society extends far
beyond biological reproduction, they are also largely responsible for the
preparation of human capital on which the dreams of being the world’s largest
economy among other things rest. It is often said that a mother is the first teacher
that a child has. This teaching however is not like a school or a college, that has a
definite end date and instead continues for the entire lives of both the mother and
the child. Whatsoever positive act is undertaken by the child such as learning a
6 https://www.oed.com/dictionary/housewife_n?tl=true
7https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2024/01/2024012544.pdf
released on 16th August 2023 and updated on 13th November 2023
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 21 of 36
skill, a language, a trade or a profession, is informed by the training that is given
on the daily, by the mother.
Similarly, and most significantly, human relations which are the
cornerstone of society, are perceived and understood first and foremost through
the ways exemplified by conduct of the mother. The everyday nudging and
signalling towards proper behaviour etiquette, later forms the path which the said
child would then emulate for their future generations. It is, therefore, a successive
chain built intercommunity and intergenerationally, of trust, cooperation and
transmission of cultural memory, norms, which take the form of social bonds that
sustain an individual either as familial relations or friendships and to an extent
even professional networks. The understanding of acceptable and unacceptable
behaviour whether it is within the home or outside it, is also communicated by the
person who is in the home at all times. Those who step out for livelihood and
return only at the end of the day, for obvious reasons have limited interaction and
so their role in the constant shaping of the individual, may somewhat be limited.
On the emotional and psychological plane, the inherent ability of a
homemaker to juggle multiple aspects whether it is meals, properly ironed clothes,
stocking up supplies, caring for the elderly in the house, ensuring that the children
stay on top of their schoolwork and so many more things that enabled, to use a
somewhat stereotypical expression, the ‘men of the house’, to have their undivided
focus on earning a good living. They provide a sense of insulation from the
pressures of the outside world, a bubble in which everything is taken care of and
all that is needed for the people therein, is to relax and rejuvenate preparing
themselves for what the next day might bring. In the majority of households, this
is taken to be ‘normal’ but the truth is that those who do not have this luxury, truly
understand what is missing in their lives. The family members in households
where the homemaker is absent be it for whatever reason, are often required to
come together and each individual therein will do a part of the work that would
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 22 of 36
otherwise fall to the absent individual who would, in fact do it with a smile on
their face.
True it is that the reality/realities contemplated thus far are both of urban
and rural application. But it is the case at least in certain areas that the women in
rural areas endure additional difficulties/labour- walking kilometres for
pails/matkas of water, transporting mounds of hay atop their backs on a daily basis
or being an additional hand in their fields alongside their husbands other than
doing all of the household work in furtherance of smooth functioning of their
households.
All of these aspects be it economic, emotional or psychological have a
direct corelation to creating a healthy society and in turn towards national
development and are areas of intense study in the subjects of public health and
social policy.
In the preceding paragraphs, we have attempted to give a world eye’s view
of the multifarious roles that are performed by a lady – a homemaker and yet why
is it that they are generally perceived through a singular outlook? To put it directly
and yet indirectly, a homemaker is like the potter and a home itself is a lump of
clay. All shapes, sizes and designs are a result of the exact right mix of the mud
with the water and the gentle caress of the hand to shape the clay into something
that is wholesome, attractive and useful.
These are the people responsible for laying the foundation stones on which
the edifices of the high flying business persons, successful politicians, headlining
artists, sought after lawyers etc., on the one hand and on the other, the silent
support behind the daily grind of an everyday worker who steps out of home in
the hopes of making a decent living for the day in other words, they have a role
either entirely invisible or just partially visible in the work of all those persons
who are recognised to be contributing to the nation. It is high time now that the
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 23 of 36
invisible is made visible or the veil is pierced to make what can be partially seen
come out in the open. The “homemakers”, to put it directly, actually are the
“nation builders” and they ought to be recognised as such.
In the end, we must place two caveats. The discussion above has been made
to highlight what has thus far remained unhighlighted. We are aware though that
this reality is not everyone’s reality. In certain homes, the homemaker has no
option but to be other things alongside being the homemaker i.e., the breadwinner
as well. In this scenario, all the above facets, are in some way, shape or form
present and may place an equally strenuous demand on her time but nonetheless
are performed with equal ease and understanding.
It may be a matter of deep seeded gender stereotypes that when we think of
the word ‘homemaker’ the picture that emerges is that of a woman. This however
may not be appropriate in all cases. As a result on one circumstance or another,
sometimes unfortunate sometimes not, a man may too need to don the role of a
homemaker. It is not to take away from the efforts of these men who also deserve
recognition and acknowledgment, but for the purposes of the present case and
more particularly the quantification of domestic efforts, we limit its application to
the quintessential and traditional image, that of a woman.
Judicial Pronouncements
14. In light of the contextual background as above, we now refer to the
instances where judicial notice has been taken, of the efforts of the homemaker
although referred to as housewife and attempts have been made to provide a
pecuniary basis therefor:
14.1 In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar8, a Bench of three Judges dealt
with the determination of compensation for the death of a housewife in a
8 (2001) 8 SCC 197
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 24 of 36
fire that erupted in the premises of a TISCO factory under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India. It approved the multiplier method for
determination of compensation as applied by Mr. Justice Y.V.
Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India who was the arbitrator in the
matter. For the deceased housewives who were generally taken to be
within the age group 34 to 59, Rs.3000/- per month was determined to be
adequate.
14.2 In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.9, the
Court was concerned with the compensation to be awarded to the
aggrieved husband of one Mrs. Renu Agarwal who died as a result of the
car being driven by the appellant therein being hit by a truck, resulting in
the former’s death. It was observed:
“26. In India the courts have recognised that the contribution made
by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in
terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with
true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing
the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered
by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the
constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night
unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work
for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of the
husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes,
etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to
them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the
household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils,
keeping the house clean, etc., but she can never be a substitute for a
wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and
children.
27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services
rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and
children. However, for 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
9 (2010) 9 SCC 218
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 25 of 36
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.”
Further, in para 35 it was observed:
35. In our view, it is highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to
compute the compensation payable to the dependants of a deceased
wife/mother, who does not have a regular income, by comparing her
services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee, who
works for a fixed period. The gratuitous services rendered by the
wife/mother to the husband and children cannot be equated with the
services of an employee and no evidence or data can possibly be
produced for estimating the value of such services. It is virtually
impossible to measure in terms of money the loss of personal care
and attention suffered by the husband and children on the demise of
the housewife. In its wisdom, the legislature had, as early as in 1994,
fixed the notional income of a non-earning person at Rs. 15,000 per
annum and in case of a spouse, 1/3rd income of the earning/surviving
spouse for the purpose of computing the compensation.
14.3 In Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.10, the Court
took the notional income of the deceased housewife aged 30 years at the
time of the accident in December 2012 following Arun Kumar Agrawal
(supra).
14.4 In Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.11, N.V.Ramana, J. (as he
then was) while dealing with a case of two deceased parents (the father
was earning and mother was homemaker), in a claim filed by minor
daughters observed as follows with regard to the time taking and
painstaking efforts of a homemaker - in essence, in transforming the four
walls of a house to a lively and fulfilling home:
“23. In fact, the recently released Report of the National Statistical
Office of the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation,
Government of India called “Time Use in India-2019”, which is the
first Time Use Survey in the country and collates information from
1,38,799 households for the period January 2019 to December 2019,
reflects the same gender disparity. [ National Statistical Office, Time
10 (2020) 7 SCC 256
11 (2021) 2 SCC 166
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 26 of 36
Use in India, 2019 (September 2020).] The key findings of the
survey suggest that, on an average, women spend nearly 299 minutes
a day on unpaid domestic services for household members versus 97
minutes spent by men on average. [Id, at p. 56.] Similarly, in a day,
women on average spend 134 minutes on unpaid caregiving services
for household members as compared to the 76 minutes spent by men
on average. [Id, at p. 54.] The total time spent on these activities per
day makes the picture in India even more clear—women on average
spent 16.9% and 2.6% of their day on unpaid domestic services and
unpaid caregiving services for household members respectively,
while men spent 1.7% and 0.8%. [Id, at p. x.]
Quantifying The Contribution-of a Nation Builder
15. In usual circumstances this Court would not have ventured further than
taking note of the fact that the incident and judgment in Lata Wadhwa (supra)
was contemporaneous to the unfortunate accident in this case and as such
compensation could be calculated using the Rs.3000/- per month metric applied
therein however, in our considered view that would not be justified. It has to be
observed that to measure the contributions of a homemaker and mother as in this
case in strictly monetary terms is a task of considerable difficulty for each and
every aspect of the day, month and year of such a homemaker’s family members
is informed, shaped by her sometimes acknowledged, but most often
unacknowledged or taken for granted, efforts. If compensation is to be
calculated in the present day while accounting for the egregious delay, to do so
in terms that were frozen on the day of the death of the deceased would be grossly
undervaluing the silent strength of homemakers.
16. That being said, even when it comes to computation for damages under
non-pecuniary heads, the loss still does require the recognition of such heads
before compensation can be awarded. The first of them being the loss of the
homemaker’s dexterous ability to manage all the chores of the household.
Granted, that in the increasingly modern urban centres of the country it may not
be the case that a homemaker stands in front of the gas stove bright and early in
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 27 of 36
the morning or late at night or even that she walks around, slouched, running the
broom throughout the house, but, the fact of the matter is that in smaller cities,
towns and villages, even today, such tasks assumedly and invariably fall on the
homemaker, without as much as a second thought. The second head pertain to
the children of the house. They have lost their mother, the source of never-ending
love, comfort and affection, the person who they could run to with all their
problems, questions and concerns and heartbreaks. She is also their first point
of contact with the ways of the world, silently and subtly teaching them skills of
survival, perseverance and excellence shaping them into well rounded human
beings capable of being functioning contributors to the economy of the nation.
This, in our view, is somewhat different from emotional support or dependence
for primary skills necessary for everyday functioning that are imbibed by the
children from their mother. This has a distinctly economic angle while also being
partly an emotional aspect perfectly fitting into the non-categorizable roles
played by homemaker. How does one calculate this? The third is equally
troubling. A husband has, no longer, the support of his life partner, someone he
depends on entirely to run smoothly, an entire part of his life, his home, family,
children, relatives. Even in conservative settings where patriarchy looms large,
the sense of dependency that obtains, if taken away, greatly challenges the man
for he is now directionless and suddenly responsible for a lot more than he is
used to. When the efforts of the homemaker towards the husband and children
are taken on the whole it cannot be disputed that although her labour be at
emotional or physical is within the four walls of the home, its impact is much
wider. In enabling the direct contribution today of their husbands and tomorrow
of their children, they are the building blocks for the nation’s road to holistic
progress.[See: Kalukutty v. P.M. John12, Bhuvaneswari v. Mani13] We may also
12 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 964
13 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 2163
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 28 of 36
observe that in a recent order of this Court in Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Girish
Pandey14, also made similar observations to the following effect:
“7. It goes without saying that the role of a homemaker is as important as
that of a family member whose income is tangible as a source of
livelihood for the family. The activities performed by a homemaker, if
counted one by one, there will hardly be any doubt that the contribution
of a homemaker is of a high order and invaluable. In fact, it is difficult to
assess such a contribution in monetary terms.”
Any computation made as a result of injury suffered or death, should be
aware of this larger role and not be myopic in its view.
The loss of a homemaker however is not limited to husband and children.
It also directly impacts the women’s own parents who have been deprived of the
love and company of their child, who have lost the support and comfort of this
person and are left alone with this boundless grief. Still further, the loss is acutely
felt by her in-laws who are more often than not members of the same household
and therefore are dependent on the love, labour and dedication of this person, for
food for medicines and doctor’s visit or for even the regular company over a
morning tea. Strict arithmetic calculation does not lend its services to any of
these scenarios.
17. It is settled law by virtue of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi15, , that in all cases that have resulted in death, loss of consortium is to be
paid to the claimants at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per dependant along with 10%
increase on the said amount every three years, so in 2026 the compensation
awarded under this head is Rs.48,400/-. This we may note is irrespective of
whether the deceased is a male/female/child/retired/working or whatever else.
We are of the considered view, in such situations the computation of
compensation upon the death of a homemaker suffers from an inherent
14 (2025) 2 SCC 145
15 (2017) 16 SCC 680
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 29 of 36
disadvantage. The amount awarded under the same is over and above what is
calculated on the basis of the earnings/salaries/pension/notional income for
certain categories of claimants. In view of the fact that there is no standard
income on the basis of which compensation can be calculated and a figure is
taken for the purposes of calculation on guesswork, the true worth of the
homemaker is missed out, in as much as it is amenable to calculation in monetary
terms.
18. Future prospects when calculated on the basis of the above judgment in
Lata Wadhwa (supra) would also be calculated on the comparative lower
notional income (Rs.3000/-per month) given that, both the fire incident and the
accident forming the basis of this appeal are from the year 2001.
19. When such conservative figures are used to build up compensation, the
amount arrived at is paltry, and not even close, as much as monetary terms can
be, to the loss endured by the claimants. Notional income is intended to
approximate the economic value of in the case of homemaker, services rendered
by them. However, for whatever reason, judicial notice of this issue is usually
overly conservative, without due acknowledgment of the fact that the role of the
homemaker is neither entirely economic nor entirely non-economic and blends
the factors of economy with emotional and managerial contributions and as such
fixed compensation in terms of loss of consortium does not cover the entire
gamut of their contribution.
Loss Of Domestic Care: An Additional Head
20. It is in these circumstances, that we deem it appropriate to direct that when a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or this Court is concerned with or a case involving the death of a homemaker, 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 also the disposition towards uniformity, that for the three major heads (the homemaker’s contribution towards smooth functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support for children and loss of spousal support/the support and care of their child who is an adult, for the parents of the deceased) discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, a composite sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be added under the head of ‘loss of domestic care’, provided that all three of these heads are met in the given case. This determination shall be revised by 10%, cumulatively, every three years. It may be clearly stated that this amount of Rs.30,000/- i.e., loss of domestic care is to be taken as a ‘standin’ (basic minimum monthly income) for monthly income in those cases where the homemaker does not have an input into the house, in strictly conventional, monetary terms. In those cases where the homemaker is part of the workforce, the component of loss of domestic care shall be in addition to the monthly income as may be proved before the Tribunal/Courts.
21. The distinction that we are attempting to draw becomes more pronounced
and justified when consortium as awarded under Pranay Sethi is understood in
a context of the two judgments discussed below:
(i) Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh16,
“17. … In legal parlance, “consortium” is the right of the spouse to the
company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and
sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of
damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of
companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to
get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary
damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of
compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United
16 (2013) 9 SCC 54
States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognised
the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of
temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an
attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace,
companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations
during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other
countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise
adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper
to award a major amount under this head. …”
(ii) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram17,:
“22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the
status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover
have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds
the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the
death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be
awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child.
The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the
love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.”
It is clear from the above extracts that ‘consortium’ deals almost
exclusively with the emotional aspects of loss that have to be endured by the
family members of the deceased homemaker while not giving adequate, if any,
attention to the contribution of the homemaker within the house from an
economic lens. It is as such, in the spirit of the Constitution particularly
preambular values that inform our interpretation that we hereby take a step
against the systematic undervaluing of the work performed by women.
Application to the present facts
22. Turning back to the facts of this case, the deceased’s claimed income of
Rs.3000/- per month from knitting and stitching, in the facts and circumstances
of this case is a mere statement without any backing. As such, we take this to a
case where the homemaker has no income in monetary terms and pursuant to the
above discussion, the compensation under the head loss of domestic care stands
17 (2018) 18 SCC 130
in as monthly income. Thus, the compensation payable to the claimants is as
under:
The award is to be met by the respondent-Insurance Company. The
interest rates and conditions as awarded and stipulated by the High Court remain
unchanged.
Compensation
Heads
As per law
Loss of domestic care/Monthly
Income
30,000
Yearly Income 3,60,000
Future Prospects (Age-35 years) 40% of 3,60,000
=1,44,000/-
3,60,000+1,44,000
=5,04,000
Multiplier (16) 5,04,000 X 16= 80,64,000/-
Deduction (1/4)
1/4 X 80,64,000=
20,16,000/-
60,48,000/-
Loss of
Consortium
48,400 X 4 =
1,93,600
Loss of Estate 18,150
Funeral
Expenses
18,150
Total 62,77,900/-
DIRECTIONS
23. Considering the issues that have arisen in this appeal, we issue following
directions:
23.1 Although the delay in this case was somewhat explained by
circumstances beyond human control, a perusal of the list of cases
reproduced in para 9 of this judgment hereto reveals that delay is a
repeated occurrence. An analysis of the data gathered in terms of the
orders passed in appeal by this Court, reveals that the average pendency
in the High Courts is approximately 8 years and before the Tribunals the
same is approximately 6 years. Numerous reasons can be ascribed for this
situation. We need not get into specifics, but we may only observe from
our own experiences that the pendency before the Tribunals if often
attributable to the fact that bare claim petitions are filed without the
requisite documents/proof to back up the claim that has been demanded.
Naturally, adjournments would be sought before the Tribunals to furnish
such documents as such we direct that all those heads such as those
illustrated below, when claimed shall be accompanied by proof, inter-alia,
as enumerated below in so far as applicable, by the claimants:
I. Age is an absolute essential factor in determination of
compensation. Official proof of Date of Birth excluding Aadhar
Card, be annexed.
II. In a case of disability, certificate in that regard issued by a
competent doctor expressly recording the percentage of disability
suffered be attached as also, the opinion of the said doctor
regarding functional disability if any.
III. If a particular income is claimed and ITRs/salary slips
issued by employer under Stamp and seal/ certificate of salary
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 34 of 36
issued by employer under Stamp and seal are available, they
must necessarily be filed.
IV. If compensation is claimed under the head of medical
expenses, bills duly attested by the competent authority of the
clinic/hospital/nursing homes be attached.
V. If attendant charges are claimed and such a person is already
in employment, a notarized affidavit, disclosing salary paid to
them, per month, be appended.
23.2 The Motor Vehicles Act,1988 to state the obvious, is a beneficial
legislation aimed at providing just and fair compensation. Both of these
salutary values are denuded by long pendency. The table supra presents
numerous examples where petitions have remained pending for years on
appeal. As such:
I. The learned Chief Justices of the High Courts are
requested to issue necessary directions to have matters that
have remained pending for the longest amount of time, listed
according to the date of institution of the appeal, before the
appropriate benches. The average taken for such purposes is
any case that has remained pending for more than four years.
For clarity, it may be stated that if matter ‘a’ has been
pending for eight and a half years and ‘b’ has been pending
for four years, ‘a’ will be listed first.
II. Having taken stock of the number of cases pending in
the respective High Courts, it may be determined by the
learned Chief Justices in their wisdom whether number of
benches with the MACT compensation roster need to be
increased or not.
C.A.No../2026 @ SLP(C)No.33915 of 2025 Page 35 of 36
23.3 Delay in expeditious disposal of cases is not only a feature at the
High Court level but also at the Tribunal. It is our hope that, by virtue of
the directions issued above to append necessary documents, delay to some
extent on account of adjournments for such purposes would be curbed. It
is noted that Section 169 of the Act provides the option to the Tribunals to
adopt a ‘summary procedure as it thinks fit’. True it is that adopting a
summary procedure is not a compulsion, it would be in the favour of
expediency if reasons are recorded by the Tribunals for not choosing to
adopt such procedure. If it is adopted where possible it would go a long
way in ensuring that the deserved compensation reaches the claimants as
soon as possible. The same be strictly enforced.
23.4 At the cost of repetition, it is stated that in a case of death involving homemaker, compensation in terms of the above discussion, the head of ‘loss of domestic care’ be added.
23.5 Heads as stipulated by Pranay Sethi (supra) be strictly adhered to
including the 10% enhancement every three years, implemented for the
heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.
23.6 It is our hope that the word housewife/homemaker, is in future, in recognition of the contributions of the lady of the house is now used as “Nation Builder”.
24. The appeal is allowed. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrars
General of all the High Courts to be placed before the learned Chief Justices to
solicit necessary orders as also to be sent for onward compliance to the Tribunals.
Pending application(s) if any shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
…………………………………………….J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi;
June 11, 2026
No comments:
Post a Comment