Why Did The Supreme Court Fix Rs 30,000 As The Value Of Homemakers' Domestic Services?
According to the Bench, homemakers are largely responsible for preparing the human capital on which the country's economic aspirations rest.
What Was The Motor Accident Compensation Dispute Before The Court?
The deceased woman's legal heirs were initially awarded compensation of only Rs 2.42 lakh by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in 2003.
The Bench expressed concern over prolonged delays in motor accident compensation cases, noting that such delays have become a recurring feature of the system.
Observing that homemakers are "nation builders" whose contribution to families and the country's economic progress remains largely invisible and undervalued, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that their unpaid domestic work must be recognised while determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, fixing Rs 30,000 per month as the minimum value of their services in cases where they have no independent income.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said that in cases where a homemaker has no direct monetary income, Rs 30,000 per month shall be treated as a "stand-in" or basic minimum monthly income for calculating compensation towards loss of domestic care.
Also Read|Contribution of homemakers invaluable: Supreme Court enhances compensation awarded to family of deceased homemaker
Court clarified that where a homemaker is also part of the workforce, compensation for loss of domestic care would be calculated in addition to her proven income.
The decision came while deciding an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in a motor accident case involving a homemaker who died in a road accident on November 25, 2001.
Why Did The Supreme Court Fix Rs 30,000 As The Value Of Homemakers' Domestic Services?
The Bench observed that Indian society often refers to the woman of the house as "grihaswamini", yet her contribution continues to remain inadequately recognised in legal and economic terms.
"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," Court said.
Highlighting the scale of unpaid domestic labour, Court noted that around 16 billion hours are spent globally every day on unpaid domestic work and care. It further observed that women's unpaid caregiving work is estimated to contribute between 15% and 17% of India's GDP, despite remaining unpaid and largely unrecognised.
Drawing an analogy, Court said a homemaker is like a potter while the home is a lump of clay shaped through care, effort and dedication.
"It is high time now that the invisible is made visible," the Bench said.
Homemakers Are 'Nation Builders'
Court emphasised that homemakers are in fact "nation builders" and deserve recognition as such.
Court stressed that the contribution of homemakers extends far beyond biological reproduction. Their daily labour enables other family members to pursue education, professions and livelihoods.
According to the Bench, homemakers are largely responsible for preparing the human capital on which the country's economic aspirations rest.
Court observed that although a homemaker's labour is often confined within the four walls of a home, its impact reaches much further.
"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," the Bench said.
Expressing hope for a change in societal perception, Court added: "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'."
What Was The Motor Accident Compensation Dispute Before The Court?
The deceased woman's legal heirs were initially awarded compensation of only Rs 2.42 lakh by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in 2003.
They challenged the award before the High Court, which in 2024 enhanced the compensation to Rs 8.43 lakh along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.
While examining the matter, the Supreme Court noted that the case records had been among those destroyed in a fire incident in 2011, a factor that partly explained the delay in disposal.
Reassessing the claim, Court ultimately enhanced the compensation payable to the family to Rs 62,77,900.
What Did The Supreme Court Say About Delay In MACT Cases?
The Bench expressed concern over prolonged delays in motor accident compensation cases, noting that such delays have become a recurring feature of the system.
While acknowledging the peculiar circumstances of the present case, Court said matters arising out of injury or death under a beneficial legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act should ideally not remain pending before a High Court for more than four years.
Also Read| Homemaker’s Work Not Equal To Unskilled Labour: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enhances Compensation
Court noted that the average pendency of such cases is around eight years before High Courts and six years before tribunals.
Observing that the objective of providing "just and fair compensation" is undermined by excessive delays, Court directed Chief Justices of all High Courts to ensure that long-pending motor accident compensation appeals are listed according to their age.
The Bench said cases pending for more than four years should receive priority, with older matters being listed before comparatively newer ones.
It also asked Chief Justices to assess whether additional benches dealing with MACT compensation matters are required to reduce pendency.
Case Title: Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram & Ors Vs Surjeet & Ors
Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: June 11, 2026
