5.1 We are of the opinion that the claimants shall be entitled
to a sum of Rs.1 lakh each instead of Rs.50,000/ as awarded
by the High Court for loss of foetus.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7629 of 2022
Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs Gainda Lal & Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Author: M. R. Shah, J.
The first deceased was a housewife aged about 30 years. In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0456/2001 : (2001) 8 SCC 197, this Court had observed that considering the multifarious services rendered by housewives, even on a modest estimation, the income of a housewife between the age group of 34 to 59 years who were active in life should be assessed at Rs. 36,000 per annum. A distinction was also drawn with regard to elderly ladies in the age group of 62 to 72 who would be more adept in discharge of housewife duties by age and experience, and the value of services rendered by them has been taken at Rs. 20,000 per annum. {Para 9}
10. In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/0507/2010 : (2010) 9 SCC 218, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the housewife at Rs. 5,000/- per month, but without any rational or reasoning concluded that she was a non-earning member and reduced the same to Rs. 2,500/-, which was affirmed by the High Court. Disapproving the same and restoring the assessed income, this Court observed at Paragraphs 26 and 27 as follows:
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 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.
11. The notional income of the first deceased is therefore held to be Rs. 5,000/- per month at the time of death. The compensation on that basis with a deduction of 1/4th i.e. Rs. 15,000/- towards personal expenses with a multiplier of 17 is assessed at Rs. 7,65,000/-. If the deceased had survived, in view of observations in Lata Wadhwa (supra), her skills as a matured and skilled housewife in contributing to the welfare and care of the family and in the upbringing of the children would have only been enhanced by time and for which reason we hold that the Appellants shall be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40% in addition to the loss of consortium and future expenses already granted. We therefore assess the total compensation payable to the Appellants in the first appeal at Rs. 11,96,000/-.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 2624 of 2020
Decided On: 18.06.2020
Rajendra Singh and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ.
Author: Navin Sinha, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0486/2020,2020(7) SCC 256.
Print PageOnce notional income has been determined, the question remains as to whether escalation for future prospects should be granted with regard to it. Initially, the awarding of future prospects by this Court was related to the stability of the job held by the victim. {Para 37}
38. However, there was a shift in jurisprudence regarding future prospects with the five-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). This Court extended the benefit regarding future prospects to even self-employed persons, or those on a fixed salary. The Court held as follows:
57. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardisation, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated Under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities....Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.
(emphasis supplied)
39. The rationale behind the awarding of future prospects is therefore no longer merely about the type of profession, whether permanent or otherwise, although the percentage awarded is still dependent on the same. The awarding of future prospects is now a part of the duty of the Court to grant just compensation, taking into account the realities of life, particularly of inflation, the quest of individuals to better their circumstances and those of their loved ones, rising wage rates and the impact of experience on the quality of work.
41. When it comes to the second category of cases, relating to notional income for non-earning victims, it is my opinion that the above principle applies with equal vigor, particularly with respect to homemakers. Once notional income is determined, the effects of inflation would equally apply. Further, no one would ever say that the improvements in skills that come with experience do not take place in the domain of work within the household. It is worth noting that, although not extensively discussed, this Court has been granting future prospects even in cases pertaining to notional income, as has been highlighted by my learned brother, Surya Kant, J., in his opinion [Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, MANU/SC/1799/2017 : (2018) 15 SCC 654; Sunita Tokas v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/1105/2019 : (2019) 20 SCC 688].
The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 19-20 of 2021
Decided On: 05.01.2021
Kirti and Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Surya Kant, S. Abdul Nazeer and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Authored By : Surya Kant, N.V. Ramana
Surya Kant, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0004/2021.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act gives a value to the compensation payable in respect of those who had no income prior to the accident and for a spouse, it says that one-third of the income of the earning surviving spouse should be the value. Exploration on the internet shows that there have been efforts to understand the value of a homemaker's unpaid labour by different methods. One is, the opportunity cost which evaluates her wages by assessing what she would have earned had she not remained at home, viz., the opportunity lost. The second is, the partnership method which assumes that a marriage is an equal economic partnership and in this method, the homemaker's salary is valued at half her husband's salary. Yet another method is to evaluate homemaking by determining how much it would cost to replace the homemaker with paid workers. This is called the Replacement Method. {Para 10}
(emphasis supplied)
35. However, it must be remembered that all the above methods are merely suggestions. There can be no exact calculation or formula that can magically ascertain the true value provided by an individual gratuitously for those that they are near and dear to. The attempt of the Court in such matters should therefore be towards determining, in the best manner possible, the truest approximation of the value added by a homemaker for the purpose of granting monetary compensation.
36. Whichever method a Court ultimately chooses to value the activities of a homemaker, would ultimately depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court needs to keep in mind its duty to award just compensation, neither assessing the same conservatively, nor so liberally as to make it a bounty to claimants [National Insurance Co. Limited v. Pranay Sethi, MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680; Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, MANU/SC/0126/2020 : (2020) 4 SCC 413].
42. Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation which can be summarized as follows:
a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.
b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.
c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally.
e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 19-20 of 2021
Decided On: 05.01.2021
Kirti and Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Surya Kant, S. Abdul Nazeer and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Authored By : Surya Kant, N.V. Ramana
Surya Kant, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0004/2021.
Print PageAssuming that the deceased was not employed, it cannot be disputed that she was a homemaker. Her direct and indirect monthly income, in no circumstances, could be less than the wages admissible to a daily wager in the State of Uttarakhand under the Minimum Wages Act. {Para 7}
8. 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 home-maker, if counted one by one, there will hardly be any doubt that the contribution of a home-maker is of a high order and invaluable. In fact, it is difficult to assess such a contribution in monetary terms.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.2512 OF 2024
ARVIND KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. Vs GIRISH PANDEY & ANR.
Dated: FEBRUARY 16, 2024.
Print PageWhen it comes to the second category of cases, relating to notional income for nonearning victims, it is my opinion that the above principle applies with equal vigor, particularly with respect to homemakers. Once notional income is determined, the effects of inflation would equally apply. Further, no one would ever say that the improvements in skills that come with experience do not take place in the domain of work within the household. It is worth noting that, although not extensively discussed, this Court has been granting future prospects even in cases pertaining to notional income, as has been highlighted by my learned brother, Surya Kant, J., in his opinion [Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 15 SCC 654; Sunita Tokas v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 688]. {Para 25}
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1920 of 2021
Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Author: Surya Kant, J:
Dated: January 05, 2021.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
Print PageTherefore, on the basis of the above, certain general
observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of
notional income for homemakers and the grant of future
prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of
compensation which can be summarized as follows:
a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect
to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.
b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with
an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the
same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a
homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a
recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of
homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also
in furtherance of our nation’s international law obligations
and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring
dignity to all.
c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the
notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts
and circumstances of the case.
d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and
fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts
and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing
the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally.
e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income
calculated in such cases, is a component of just
compensation. {Para 26}
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1920 of 2021
Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Author: Surya Kant, J:
Dated: January 05, 2021.
Print Page
Citation: 2009(5) ALLMR 791 Bom, 2009(6) MHLJ 115
