Hans News Service Bengaluru

TheHigh Court has observed that the term “homemaker” is not restricted to women and can apply to men, women and even working professionals who contribute to the welfare and well-being of their families.

The observation came while hearing a motor accident compensation case involving a woman who suffered permanent disability in a KSRTC bus accident. The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to her by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by an additional Rs 1,96,800.

The appeal was filed by Pampa Pal, a native of West Bengal, seeking enhancement of the Rs 4.55 lakh compensation awarded by the tribunal. KSRTC had also challenged the tribunal’s order granting compensation to her. KSRTC argued that Pampa Pal was not employed at the time of the accident and, being highly educated, could not be treated as a homemaker. The corporation contended that since she was working as a homemaker on the date of the accident, she could not claim compensation under the head of future loss of income. Justice Dr. Chilakuri Sumalatha, while rejecting this contention, observed that the concept of a homemaker should not be narrowly understood. Being a homemaker does not mean that a person must be uneducated, remain at home throughout the day or engage exclusively in household work. The court observed that the term “homemaker” is not confined to women and that anyone who sacrifices personal interests and contributes significantly to the comfort, welfare and well-being of the family can be considered a homemaker. The principle, the court noted, applies equally to men and working professionals. Pampa Pal was travelling from Bengaluru to Madikeri in a KSRTC Rajahamsa bus on October 19, 2013, when the bus collided with a lorry.

She sustained serious injuries and suffered permanent physical disability. She claimed to have spent up to Rs 10 lakh on medical treatment. The tribunal had awarded her Rs 4,55,243, including medical expenses. Challenging the amount, Pampa Pal told the High Court that she held a postgraduate degree in biotechnology and had worked as a guest lecturer before the accident. She had also undertaken private tutoring and earned around Rs 35,000 per month. She submitted that although she was working as a homemaker at the time of the accident, her educational qualifications, previous employment and income-earning capacity should also be considered while determining compensation. Taking these factors into account, the High Court enhanced the compensation by Rs 1,96,800, providing a broader interpretation of the economic value of household and family-related work.