The Kerala High Court recently slammed the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) for denying compensation to an accident victim because she is a housewife with no income.
Justice Devan Ramachandran called the transport body’s stance “outrageous,” and highlighted that accident compensation should be the same for a housewife and a working woman because the former also invests time in her family and ensures that the next generation is nurtured with the highest levels of excellence.
The Court stated, “In such a case, monetary compensation for an injury caused to a housewife must be measured and weighed on the same scales as if she were a working woman – if not more.”
The single-judge highlighted that human beings’ lives should never be measured in terms of monetary value, but rather in terms of contribution and selflessness.
Regarding her contributions as a mother and wife, the judge stated that they are invaluable.
“At the outset, I must state that the KSRTC’s contention that a housewife earns no income and thus is ineligible for compensation for disability and loss of amenities is outrageous and beyond comprehension. A mother and wife’s role at home is beyond compare, and she is a true nation builder. She devotes her time to the family and ensures that the next generation is raised to the highest standards, and her efforts should never be taken trivially or brushed aside, as being without monetary value,” the Court stated.
The Court was hearing an petition filed by a housewife challenging the order of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) that awarded her only 40,000 as compensation for the severe injuries she sustained as a result of a KSRTC bus driver’s rash application of the brakes.
The woman sought 2 lakh because she needed extensive treatment while bedridden and also suffered from extreme trauma for a long time after the incident. This prompted her to move to the High Court.
KSRTC’s advocate, Alex Antony Sebastian, argued that the compensation awarded by the tribunal was flawless, especially given that the appellant was a housewife with no income.
Sebastian also argued that because the appellant herself admitted she was not earning any income, the tribunal could not have granted anything more than what was now awarded.
The Court noted that the housewife’s wound certificate indicated that she had a spinal fracture that caused compression, causing her to have difficulty breathing and pain throughout her body.
The MACT’s observation that the housewife was unable to perform her “routine work” due to the spinal injury and trauma, is an understatement of the pain and suffering she endured, the Court stated.
As a result, the Court granted the petitioner’s appeal in part and awarded her total compensation of ₹1,64,654, rather than the MACT’s award of ₹40,214.
