Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in an order last week, noted the “integral role played by a homemaker” in a family and nearly doubled the compensation awarded to the family of a Sirsa woman who died three years after a road crash left her in a vegetative state.
The court also fixed the notional income of a homemaker at Rs 15,000 per month and awarded Rs 15 lakh for the “unspeakable suffering” she endured.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma on 15 January enhanced the compensation from Rs 58.22 lakh awarded by a Sirsa motor accident claims tribunal (MCAT) to Rs 1.18 crore in response to an appeal filed by Shilpa Jain’s family.
Shilpa died on 21 November 2017 after living in a vegetative state following the accident on 8 October 2014.
The High Court’s judgment is significant not just for the quantum of compensation, but for how it valued a homemaker’s work and acknowledged the pain of existing in a vegetative state.
Also Read: Delhi Bar Council has rarely had women members before. This time, the mould is ready to break
Value of a homemaker’s work
Rejecting the tribunal’s assessment of Shilpa Jain’s notional income as a homemaker, Justice Sharma cited an earlier Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in the Jasbir Singh vs Surjit Singh case, which had assessed this notional income at Rs 9,000 per month for a 2012 accident.
Considering inflation and rising cost of living between 2012 and 2014, the judge fixed Rs 15,000 per month as “just and reasonable”.
“The work of a housewife transcends caretaking; embracing preparation of meals for the entire family; procurement of groceries and household supplies; cleaning and maintenance of the house and surroundings; financial planning and budget management; child care and education; tending to elderly dependents; coordinating repairs and home-based healthcare, etc,” the judgment read.
“These services, if procured in the open market, would command substantial remuneration, underscoring the integral role played by a homemaker in family stability,” it added.
The court added 40 percent as future prospects to this income, bringing the annual loss to Rs 2.52 lakh. With a multiplier of 17 and 100 percent disability, the loss of future earnings came to Rs 42.84 lakh, according to the court’s calculations.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) in India use a standard multiplier method to calculate compensation for death or disability depending on the age of the accident victim. The multiplier number is chosen considering the number of years more that the individual could have had an “active career” if not for the accident.
Rs 15 lakh for pain and suffering
Medical records showed Shilpa Jain had suffered serious head injuries with multiple haemorrhagic contusions. She was operated upon, kept on a ventilator, and eventually slipped into a complete vegetative state. Dr Sanjeev Rajput, a neurosurgeon who testified, said she was being fed through pipes and had no movement whatsoever.
The tribunal, the High Court observed, had awarded a “meagre amount” under this head. Justice Sharma enhanced this section of the compensation to Rs 15 lakh, citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in the KS Muralidhar vs R Subbulakshmi case.
“Permanent disability suffered by an individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities, but there are multiple non-quantifiable implications for the victim,” Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed.
“The very fact that a healthy person turns into invalid being deprived of normal companionship and incapable of leading a productive life makes one suffer loss of dignity,” the judge said.
Attendant charges and medical expenses
The High Court awarded Rs 8 lakh as attendant charges and upheld the tribunal’s award of Rs 30 lakh towards future medical expenses.
The insurance company–which typically pays the compensation amounts–had challenged the future medical expenses component, arguing that it was “exorbitant and arbitrary” and that since Shilpa Jain had died, no future expenses could have been incurred.
Justice Sharma rejected this stand, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2025 order in the Dhannalal vs Nasir Khan case. In this case, the top court had held that amounts towards medical expenses and attendant charges incurred during the victim’s lifetime form part of the ‘estate’ and legal heirs are entitled to recover these amounts.
Loss of estate refers to the loss of savings or assets that the deceased would have accumulated and left behind for their heirs had the accident not occurred.
“The injured had lived for 11 years after the accident, in a vegetative state. That has already become a part of the estate of the injured-victim,” the Supreme Court had observed in the Dhannalal case.
Similarly, Shilpa Jain had lived in that condition for three years.
(Edited by Prerna Madan)
Also Read: Fauji wife 2.0—Army spouses are turning ‘sarkari ghar’ lifestyle into online careers