Case at a glance: The Delhi High Court has enhanced motor accident compensation for a woman whose legs were crushed under a bus when she was 74, rejecting the Tribunal's view that an elderly homemaker past “retirement” age has no income. Calling the approach “ageism”, the Court applied notional income at the skilled minimum wage, raised attendant charges to Rs 5 lakh and provided for artificial limb replacement every five years.
On 19 February 2019 the claimant, then 74, was boarding a bus at Pandav Nagar when it was driven rashly and both her legs were crushed under the rear wheels. She underwent a below-knee amputation of the left leg and amputation of all toes of the right foot.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 14.42 lakh but nothing for loss of income or future earning capacity, reasoning that an elderly homemaker past retirement age could not be presumed to have an income. She appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a motor accident tribunal deny loss of earning capacity to an elderly homemaker merely because of her age?
Rejecting Ageism in Compensation
The Court held that age alone cannot justify assuming a person has stopped contributing, drawing on WHO and UN materials, life-expectancy data and Article 21. Applying the Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar test, it assessed functional disability at 50%, and following Kirti v. Oriental Insurance and related cases on homemakers, fixed notional income at Rs 16,962 a month, the Delhi skilled minimum wage on the accident date.
It applied multiplier 5 under Sarla Verma, with no future prospects as she was over 60 (Pranay Sethi). It raised attendant charges to Rs 5 lakh and pain and suffering to Rs 1 lakh. For the artificial limb, it replaced the Tribunal's 10-year life with a five-year replacement cycle, holding that a fixed life-expectancy assumption cannot be applied rigidly to someone already past 70.
What the Court Actually Held
- Compensation was enhanced to Rs 20,79,307, an increase of Rs 6,37,307.
- Loss of future earning capacity: Rs 5,08,860; loss of income for three months: Rs 50,886.
- The insurer must deposit the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest from filing within four weeks; Rs 1,37,307 to be released and the balance placed in staggered FDRs.
- Rs 1.3 lakh for an additional limb plus Rs 75,000 for maintenance to be kept in an FDR and released against verified invoices.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It recognises the economic value of elderly homemakers' work.
- It confronts age-based assumptions in compensation law.
- It sets a practical approach to artificial limb costs for older claimants.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants' Counsel
- Claim notional income for elderly homemakers using the minimum wage.
- Seek realistic limb replacement cycles and attendant charges with evidence.
For Insurers
- Expect courts to reject age-based denial of earning capacity.
Key Takeaways
- Age alone does not end earning capacity.
- Notional income at the skilled minimum wage.
- Attendant charges raised to Rs 5 lakh.
- Limb replacement every five years.
Frequently Asked Questions
It held an elderly homemaker past retirement age could not be presumed to earn.
Rs 16,962 a month, the Delhi skilled minimum wage on the accident date.
On a five-year replacement cycle, with funds released against verified invoices.
Conclusion
The judgment is a significant correction of age-based reasoning in motor accident claims.
Practical takeaway: Elderly homemakers injured in accidents can claim loss of earning capacity on notional income; age is not a bar.