[MACT claim] To tag housewife as ‘skilled worker’ doesn't do justice to her role as home manager: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court recently observed that terming a housewife a ‘skilled worker’ while deciding a motor accident claim, does not do justice to her role in managing the house [Mrinal Kanti Debnath & ors vs United India Assurance Co Ltd & ors]..Justice Malasri Nandi, who was hearing an appeal against an order of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), held that a housewife is more than a mere skilled worker and the compensation contribution with respect to such a deceased person must be calculated accordingly. "In my considered opinion to tag a house wife as a ‘skilled worker’ alone does not do complete justice to her multifarious role as a home manager ... it would not be unreasonable to estimate the contribution of the deceased in the present case at a higher figure amounting to ₹5,000 without deduction," the Court observed. .The single-judge was hearing an appeal filed by the minor daughters and widowed mother of the deceased against MACT order which had awarded ₹4,25,000 as compensation for motor accident death of the deceased.The MACT had arrived at the amount after taking into account funeral expenses, and losses of estate, consortium, and love and affection.The respondent-insurance company submitted that the husband of the deceased was not dependent on the deceased wife's income and thus the compensation amount, as calculated in the MACT order, does not include an amount of compensation for her lost income.The counsel for the claimants said the appeal was on the grounds that the claimants are minor daughters and the widowed mother of the deceased who had an income of her own (since she was employed as an Anganwadi helper and her monthly salary was ₹1,500). The petitioners are her dependents and such loss of dependency should be considered and the tribunal's award be modified, it was argued..The Court said that the argument of the insurance company that if a loss of dependency is to be considered, the income of the deceased should be fixed at ₹1,500 given her fixed earnings as an Anganwadi worker, is flawed.Justice Nandi relied on the Supreme Court decision in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi & Ors Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar & Ors in which the Court had, while fixing the homemaker's income at ₹3,000 per month, held that "it is hard to monetize the domestic work done by a housewife/mother. The service of the mother/wife is available 24 hours and her duties are never fixed. Courts have recognized the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of money."The Court also placed reliance on the top court's decision in Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and other in which the accident had taken place in 1981 and the Court evaluated the contribution of a house wife at ₹3,000 per month.The Court noted that in the present case, the accident happened in 2013, that is, 32 years after the case of Lata Wadhwa. It, therefore, proceeded to fix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹5,000. Noting that the deceased woman was 40 years old at the time of her death, the Court ruled that the compensation for her annual income would be calculated for 15 years, as per the apex court decision in Sarla Verma. Vs. DTC. Further, as per the top court's decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi & Ors., the Court in the instant case fixed the compensation under the remaining heads as follows: loss of estate, oss of consortium and Funeral expenses at ₹15,000, ₹40,000 and ₹15,000 respectively.The compensation amount was thus increased to ₹9,70,000. In allowing the appeal, the Court noted that the daughters were minors at the time of their mother's death.Thus, the Court held that 80 percent of the compensation will be divided between the two minor daughters and balance 20 percent will go to the claimant no. 1/ husband, Mrinal kanti Debnath, if he is not re-married. In case the husband is re-married, then the daughters will get 100 percent of the computed compensation, the Court added.[Read Judgment]