On the footing that “the absence of a monetary consideration cannot operate to the advantage of the tortfeasor”, the Delhi High Court has held that age over 70 cannot erase a homemaker’s worth in motor accident compensation, raising the award to a woman who was 74 when a bus crushed both her legs by Rs 6,37,307 to Rs 20,79,307.
New Delhi: Age over 70 cannot erase a homemaker’s worth in motor accident compensation, the Delhi High Court has ruled while enhancing the award of a woman who was 74 at the time of the accident. Her unpaid household and caregiving work cannot be disregarded merely because she is over 70, the Court held, and the lack of monetary consideration for such work cannot reduce what she is owed. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rs 14,42,000, now stands at Rs 20,79,307 with interest at 7.5 per cent [Ganga Devi v. Rajesh Kumar and Others].
The appeal (MAC.APP. 224/2024) was allowed by Justice Anish Dayal, who reserved judgment on 18 September and pronounced it on 12 October 2026.
A bus, a bus stand and a Tribunal that assessed nothing for income
Ganga Devi, a homemaker aged 74, was boarding a bus near the Samaspur bus stand in Pandav Nagar, Delhi, on 19 February 2019 when she was hit and both her legs were crushed under the rear wheels. She holds a disability certificate for 74 per cent permanent disability of both lower limbs. The Tribunal (MACT, East District) found the bus driver negligent and awarded Rs 14,42,000 with 7.5 per cent interest, yet assessed nothing for loss of income or future income, reasoning that she was an elderly woman who had never been employed and that the evidence of her household contribution was not enough.
Stereotypes about age
Should a homemaker over 70 be denied compensation for her services only because her age makes her look like a dependant? The Court answered no, adding that an approach resting on age alone risks being shaped by stereotypes and prejudice. It could find no age limit in the Supreme Court decisions that recognise the economic value of unpaid domestic work, and reading one in would run against the beneficial purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act. Older persons, it noted, often provide valuable domestic help, including childcare for grandchildren. On payment for such work, it said:
“the absence of a monetary consideration cannot operate to the advantage of the tortfeasor”
The recalculation, head by head
Her notional income was fixed at Rs 16,962 a month, the Delhi minimum wage for a skilled worker at the time of the accident, and loss of income for three months was put at Rs 50,886. Taking functional disability at 50 per cent with a multiplier of 5, and allowing no future prospects because she was above 60, the Court arrived at Rs 5,08,860 for future loss of income.
Attendant charges went up from Rs 50,000 to Rs 5,00,000, and pain and suffering from Rs 75,000 to Rs 1,00,000. Medical expenses (Rs 4,19,561), loss of amenities (Rs 4,00,000) and disfigurement (Rs 1,00,000) stayed as awarded, and the Rs 25,000 already paid as interim compensation was deducted.
Artificial limb beyond life expectancy of 70
Earlier decisions use a life expectancy of 70 years for prosthetics, but the Court said that figure cannot be applied rigidly to someone already past that age. One further prosthetic limb was allowed at Rs 1,30,000, with Rs 75,000 for maintenance, to be deposited with the Tribunal and released only on verified invoices.
Deposit and release
Within four weeks, the enhanced amount with 7.5 per cent interest from the date of the petition is to be deposited with the Tribunal. Of this, Rs 1,37,307 is to be released to the claimant within two weeks of deposit; the balance with accrued interest is to be put in fixed deposits of Rs 30,000 each at staggered maturities, with the interest credited to her savings account. The claimant is now 81.
Beyond the age bands in the multiplier tables
The judgment carries the recognition of unpaid domestic work as work of economic value to claimants who fall outside the age bands in standard multiplier tables, and rejects the view that a very elderly homemaker has no compensable loss. The practical result is a notional income, a loss of future earning capacity and a prosthetic allowance for a claimant whom the Tribunal had treated as having none.
Case Details: Ganga Devi v. Rajesh Kumar and Others | MAC.APP. 224/2024 | Delhi High Court | Bench: Justice Anish Dayal | Reserved on 18 September 2026; pronounced on 12 October 2026.
Appearances: Advocates Pooja Goel and Muskaan Goel for the appellant-claimant; Advocates Pankaj Seth, Shruti Jain and Tanya Jindal for the Insurance Company.