Supreme Court Recognises Homemakers’ Domestic Services as Separate Compensation Head, Fixes Minimum Value at ₹30,000 Per Month

New Delhi: In a significant ruling aimed at recognising the economic value of unpaid domestic labour, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the loss of domestic care and household services provided by a homemaker constitutes a distinct and compensable head of damages in motor accident compensation cases. The Court further quantified the minimum value of such services at ₹30,000 per month.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N.K. Singh delivered the judgment while deciding an appeal arising under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court observed that the contribution of homemakers extends far beyond routine household chores and plays a vital role in the development of families, society, and the nation at large.

Recognising the social and economic significance of unpaid domestic work, the Bench held that the loss suffered by family members due to the death or incapacitation of a homemaker must be separately accounted for while determining compensation in motor accident claims.

The Court noted that homemakers perform indispensable caregiving and household management functions that directly contribute to the upbringing of individuals and the overall well-being of families. Such contributions, it observed, cannot be ignored merely because they do not generate conventional income.

Describing homemakers as “nation-builders,” the Bench underscored that their work contributes substantially to human development and social progress. It held that the loss of domestic care and household services would constitute an additional and independent head of damages over and above the conventional heads of compensation recognised by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi.

Clarifying the position under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court directed that tribunals and courts must separately assess and compensate the value of domestic services rendered by a homemaker while awarding just compensation.

The Bench further observed that the term “homemaker” should be understood in a broad and meaningful sense, reflecting the substantial contribution of individuals who dedicate their time and effort to managing households and caring for family members.

The judgment marks another step in the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on the recognition of unpaid domestic work. Referring to its 2024 decision on the subject, the Court recalled that it had rejected the notion that homemakers do not work and had held that their notional income could not be assessed below the minimum wages payable to a daily wage worker. Building on that principle, the present ruling specifically fixes the minimum monthly value of domestic care and household services at ₹30,000.

Apart from laying down compensation principles, the Supreme Court also stressed the need for expeditious disposal of motor accident compensation claims. Referring to Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which envisages a summary procedure before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs), the Court observed that the legislative intent behind the provision is to ensure speedy adjudication and timely relief to accident victims and their families.

The Bench expressed hope that tribunals would implement the statutory framework in its true spirit and adhere to the summary procedure contemplated under the Act. It cautioned that delays in adjudication defeat the objective of welfare legislation and undermine access to effective remedies for victims.

To strengthen institutional oversight, the Court further observed that the Chief Justices of all High Courts should monitor the functioning of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals within their respective jurisdictions and ensure the timely disposal of pending cases. It also emphasised the effective implementation of the principles laid down in the judgment while determining compensation in future motor accident claims.