Income of a Home Maker - Interesting Decisions in MACT

One could often have seen on TV shows – ‘the woman would say – I am simply a housewife; while another confident looking woman would claim that she is a ‘homemaker’ – is there any real difference or simply one of emphasis.  Homemaker appears to  be more modern – focussing on creating a home, and is a matter of style and choice.   A homemaker is a person whose main job is to take care of his or her own family home and children. Traditionally, the job of homemaker is done by women and the job of provider is done by men, but both men and women can be providers and homemakers. There has been debate on how much ‘a home maker’ earns or ‘how much one is worth’ – simply by calculating on how much one would have to spend otherwise.  If only people were to outsource most of what a homemaker does, such cost could easily hit the roof.  Though the daily chores of a homemaker are taken for granted, they contribute a lot more to the home in addition to these tasks and no amount of money can fill those needs. Of course, there can be no compensation for the love and affection. 
On road accidents do occur and victims of road accidents file claims before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals [MACT] – the amount of compensation would include : compensation based on loss of earning, pain & suffering, medical expenses, and interest besides legal costs. Sometime back, there was a Judgment that compensation is ‘damages and is not income’ and hence there would be no incometax payable on the claim amount. Recently, TOI reported of a decision of TN Accident tribunal which fixed the salary of a homemaker at Rs. 1250/- per month.  That was  the monetised value of domestic responsibilities that homemakers discharge 24 X 7, according to a motor accident claims tribunal in the state. Keeping Rs.15,000/-  as the `notional income' of a housewife, a tribunal in Virudhunagar district awarded a paltry Rs.1.62 lakh as compensation for her death. In that impugned case, Selvi (31) earning Rs.5000 a month by selling clothes died in an accident in Apr 2004.  Her husband, daughter (5) and mother were the petitioners.   Disbelieving the claim of an independent income for Selvi as it was not supported by any documents, the tribunal concluded that her `notional income' as homemaker was Rs.15,000 annually . Slamming the tribunal for its narrow-mindedness and saying that such a view could not be tolerated, the Madras high court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6.76 lakh. Justice S Vimala, pointing out that the victim's five-year-old daughter must be missing her mother's lap, observed: “The primary responsibility of the homemaker is to ensure that the family is happy,  healthy and prosperous. To make the home as heart of the family,  giving total relaxation and complete freedom and joy to members of the family , is the critical role willingly undertaken and delightfully discharged. As it is voluntary, it is quite often neglected, forgotten and devalued.  Relying on Supreme Court rulings on the issue, Justice Vimala then considered Rs.36,000/- as annual `notional income' of the woman, and arrived at a compensation figure of  6.76 lakh and directed the authorities to deposit the sum within three weeks. In another case, the State run Metropolitan Transport Corporation had argued that the death of a 23-year-old BPO employee in a road accident would not cause any loss to her parents as she would have any way got married and left her parental home.  The victim was traveling as a pillion rider on a scooter from Alandur to Anna Nagar when the vehicle an MTC bus knocked them from behind. Grievously injured, she died the next day. The victim was aged 23 years at the time of accident, and was a team leader in a  BPO in Anna Nagar, earning Rs.13000 per month + incentive.  After deducting 1/3^rd of the salary towards personal expenses of the victim, the tribunal considered Rs.8,677 as her effective income and calculated it against her age and other relevant factors to arrive at a figure of  13.52 lakh as compensation. While the family wanted enhancement of compensation, MTC’s counsel wanted it reduced saying she would have got married and left parental home anyway. The Madras high court flayed this “gender bias“ displayed by MTC, and enhanced the compensation payable to her family from Rs.13.57 lakh to Rs.17.3 lakh.   The  Court stated that in today’s society daughters are taking as much care of their parents as sons.  There is no intelligible bias to deny compensation to the parents in respect of the death of a daughter.” The judges cited the Supreme Court judgments and said: “As she died at the age of 23 years, 50% has to be added for future prospects as per the evidence placed on record indicated that she was getting incentives periodically. To calculate the final compensation the age of the victim, and not that of the parents, has to be taken into account, they said, adding, “The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be a number of dependents whose age may be different. Therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation. The Court directed the MTC to deposit the amount within two months. In this regard, the judges said, “the compensation awarded should not be inadequate, at the same time, it should neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient." With regards – S. Sampathkumar 16^th Jan 2015
Judgments as reported in Time of India.