Accident Claim | A Homemaker’s Pain Is Not Priceless: Punjab & Haryana High Court Doubles Compensation for Vegetative State Victim

"Her Labour Was Unpaid, But Not Without Value – ₹1.18 Cr Awarded for 100% Disability Suffered by Homemaker Rendered Lifeless for Three Years", Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered a landmark judgment enhancing compensation in a motor accident claim from ₹58.22 lakhs to ₹1.18 crores, emphatically recognising the economic and emotional impact of total functional disability suffered by a homemaker who remained in a vegetative state for over three years before her death.”

Justice Sudeepti Sharma held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had failed to justly assess the value of the claimant's contribution as a homemaker, ignored settled law on future prospects and non-pecuniary damages, and overlooked the lifelong care needs arising from the irreversible vegetative condition.

“A Healthy Person Reduced to a Non-Speaking, Non-Responding Body Deserves Dignified Compensation”

Observing that the claimant—Shilpa Jain—suffered 100% disability and remained entirely dependent on tube feeding and artificial life support until her demise in November 2017, the Court noted:

“Permanent disability suffered by an individual not only impairs their cognitive abilities and physical faculties, but there are multiple non-quantifiable implications... deprivation of companionship and the ability to lead a productive life causes loss of dignity.”

The Court referred to medical testimony that the claimant had suffered multiple haemorrhagic contusions and was in a complete vegetative state, concluding that the initial compensation under non-pecuniary heads was “grossly inadequate.”

“Homemaker’s Role Is Not Menial, It’s Multifaceted and Economically Vital”

In a powerful reiteration of the value of domestic labour, the Court revisited jurisprudence from Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar and Jasbir Singh v. Surjit Singh to underline the “indispensable contribution” of homemakers. Justice Sharma held:

“A homemaker’s services—if procured in the open market—would command substantial remuneration, underscoring the integral role she plays in familial stability.”

The notional income of the deceased was reassessed at ₹15,000 per month, considering the year of accident (2014), rising costs, and the multifaceted domestic responsibilities performed by homemakers. Importantly, the Court applied a 40% increase for future prospects in terms of Pranay Sethi, noting that the same applies even in injury claims involving permanent disability.

100% Functional Disability: Recalculation of Loss of Future Earnings with Multiplier of 17

The Court adopted a multiplier of 17 based on the claimant’s age and held that the 100% disability warranted complete reassessment of future earning loss. Relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Erudhaya Priya v. SETC Ltd., the Court applied settled principles and computed the following:

• Monthly Income (including future prospects): ₹21,000

• Annual Income: ₹2,52,000

• Total Loss of Earning Capacity: ₹2,52,000 × 17 = ₹42,84,000

“Pain in Silence: ₹15 Lakhs Awarded for Suffering in Vegetative State”

Recognising the prolonged and profound suffering endured by the deceased while completely immobile and non-responsive for over three years, the Court enhanced compensation under pain and suffering to ₹15 lakhs. Citing K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi, Justice Sharma held:

“The very fact that a healthy person turns into an invalid, deprived of normal companionship and incapable of leading a productive life, results in immense pain and suffering.”

The Court rejected the tokenistic amount awarded by the Tribunal and instead granted a compensation commensurate with the irreversible and tragic condition.

Attendant Charges: Multiplier Method Applied, ₹8 Lakhs Awarded

In line with Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ajay Kumar v. Jasbir Singh, the Court applied the multiplier method to attendant care, noting that the deceased required constant assistance. Though the Court refrained from awarding the full ₹21.6 lakh amount as seen in similar cases involving lifetime disability, it awarded ₹8 lakhs to account for the intensive care needed during the three years prior to death.

Medical Expenses Are Part of the Estate—Rs.30 Lakhs Upheld Despite Death

The Insurance Company had argued that future medical expenses could not be awarded since the claimant had died. Rejecting the objection, the Court held that:

“The amounts computed towards medical and attendant expenses—both incurred and future—having accrued during the lifetime of the injured, form part of the estate of the injured-victim.”

This position was firmly rooted in Dhannalal @ Dhanraj v. Nasir Khan, where the Supreme Court had upheld future medical compensation despite the injured’s subsequent death.

Loss of Amenities, Special Diet, Transportation—Holistic Compensation Granted

Noting the complete denial or undervaluation of certain heads by the Tribunal, the High Court awarded:

• ₹5,00,000 for loss of amenities of life

• ₹3,00,000 for special diet

• ₹2,00,000 for transportation

These awards reflected the necessity of a holistic, rather than mechanical, approach to just compensation, as repeatedly emphasised by the Supreme Court.

Interest @ 9% Upheld from Date of Claim—Compensation Nearly Doubled

In line with Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara and R. Valli v. TNSTC, the Court held that the enhanced compensation would carry 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till realisation.

Enhanced Compensation of ₹59.98 Lakhs Payable Within Two Months

The total award was enhanced from ₹58,22,000/- to ₹1,18,20,000/-, with the enhanced portion of ₹59,98,000/- payable by the insurer along with interest. The Tribunal was directed to ensure disbursal to the legal representatives of the deceased within two months.

Courts Must Not Overlook the Human Suffering Behind Medical Reports

Justice Sharma’s judgment is a resounding call to ensure that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act reflects not merely arithmetic but the lived reality of victims—particularly those whose labour is historically unacknowledged.

“The guiding principle under Section 168 of the Act is ‘just compensation’. It must be liberal, not parsimonious.”

The ruling affirms that even when a homemaker suffers silently in a vegetative state, the law must speak — and compensate — with clarity and compassion.

Date of Decision: 15 January 2026