Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Calcutta High Court Recognizes Invaluable Contribution of Housewives in Motor Accident Compensation Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on September 27, 2023, by The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, the Calcutta High Court acknowledged the invaluable contribution of housewives while awarding compensation in a motor accident claim case. The case, FMAT (MV) 59 Of 2022, involved Pratima Sahoo, who sought enhancement of compensation for severe injuries sustained in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving.

The judgment delved into the assessment of compensation, particularly the appellant’s income, which was a point of dispute. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had assessed her income as a housewife at Rs. 3000/- per month. However, the appellant claimed her income to be Rs. 4000/- per month, which the court accepted.

Justice Gupta’s observation highlighted the unique nature of a housewife’s role: “A housewife’s job requires more contribution than a normal job or service of an earning person. She maintains her husband, children, parents, and other family members for the entire day by way of caring for them, cleaning, cooking food, and many others, as a result, her income cannot be equated with earnings of a normal person.”

The court also cited the Supreme Court’s precedent in Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., which confirmed the income of a housewife as Rs. 5,000/- per month, emphasizing the immeasurable value of their services.

Regarding the compensation, the court determined enhanced compensation for pain, suffering, and future prospects. The appellant was awarded an additional sum of Rs. 2,14,000/- along with 6% per annum interest from the date of the claim application, bringing justice to her plight.

This judgment not only rectifies the assessment of compensation but also underscores the significant role played by housewives in our society, recognizing their efforts as immeasurable and invaluable.

Date of Decision: 27.09.2023

Pratima Sahoo Versus Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News