The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the amount of insurance payout for a homemaker following an accident cannot be determined in the same way as for a salaried individual. As a result, the court has directed the insurance company of the appellant to pay her double the original award amount. The tribunal court had initially granted Pratima Sahoo Rs 2,09,746, but the high court has now awarded her a total of Rs 4,23,746. The lower court had made an error in determining her notional monthly income at Rs 3,000.
The high court emphasized that it is not possible to quantify the value of the services provided by a wife or mother to her family. Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta stated, “It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the service rendered by a wife or mother to her family.”
Sahoo had sustained severe injuries in a car accident in East Midnapore in 2013. Dissatisfied with the decision of the tribunal court, she appealed to the higher court.
Justice Gupta stated that it was unexpected for a homemaker to be required to prove her actual income through salary certificates, as is the case for salaried individuals. He noted, “A housewife’s job requires more contribution than a normal job or service of an earning person…. As a result, her income cannot be equated with earnings of a normal person. Her earnings cannot be calculated in the form of monthly salary or wages.”
The judge pointed out that the lower court had erred in estimating Sahoo’s income at only Rs 3,000. He emphasized that her oral evidence claiming an income of Rs 4,000 should have been enough. The court stated, “In this case, the claimant herself claims before the learned tribunal with a clean hand, showing her income as Rs 4,000 per month. Therefore, it cannot be discarded only on the contention that she failed to produce any document in support of her claim. Her oral evidence is sufficient to accept her contention that her income was Rs 4,000 per month.”
The high court also found the compensation awarded by the tribunal court for Sahoo’s pain, suffering, loss of income, and future income of Rs 5,000 to be insufficient considering the extent of her suffering. The court also took into account the long-term disability resulting from her injuries, which a medical board confirmed as 50% disabled for the next 10 years. Given the severity of her injury, life expectancy, and disability certificate, the court increased the compensation for her suffering to Rs 50,000 and added an additional monthly component of Rs 1,600.
The court ordered Cholamandalam MS General Insurance, the respondent in the case, to immediately pay out Rs 2,14,000, which is the difference between the total awarded compensation of Rs 4,23,746 and the initial payment of Rs 2,09,746 that Sahoo had already received.
