One could often
have seen on TV shows – ‘the woman would say – I am simply a housewife; while
another confident looking woman would claim that she is a ‘homemaker’ – is
there any real difference or simply one of emphasis. Homemaker appears to be more modern – focussing on creating a
home, and is a matter of style and choice. A homemaker is a person whose main job is to take care
of his or her own family home and children. Traditionally, the job of homemaker
is done by women and the job of provider is done by men, but both men and women
can be providers and homemakers. There has been debate on how much ‘a
home maker’ earns or ‘how much one is worth’ – simply by calculating on how
much one would have to spend otherwise.
If only people were to outsource most of what a homemaker does, such
cost could easily hit the roof. Though
the daily chores of a homemaker are taken for granted, they contribute a lot
more to the home in addition to these tasks and no amount of money can fill
those needs. Of course, there can be no compensation for the love and
affection.
On road accidents
do occur and victims of road accidents file claims before Motor Accident Claims
Tribunals [MACT] – the amount of compensation would include : compensation based on loss of
earning, pain & suffering, medical expenses, and interest besides legal
costs. Sometime back, there was a Judgment that compensation is ‘damages and is
not income’ and hence there would be no incometax payable on the claim
amount.
Recently, TOI reported
of a decision of TN Accident tribunal which fixed the salary of a homemaker at
Rs. 1250/- per month. That was the monetised value of domestic
responsibilities that homemakers discharge 24 X 7, according to a motor
accident claims tribunal in the state. Keeping Rs.15,000/- as the `notional income' of a housewife, a
tribunal in Virudhunagar district awarded a paltry Rs.1.62 lakh as compensation
for her death. In that impugned case, Selvi (31) earning Rs.5000 a month by
selling clothes died in an accident in Apr 2004. Her husband, daughter (5) and mother were the
petitioners. Disbelieving the claim of
an independent income for Selvi as it was not supported by any documents, the
tribunal concluded that her `notional income' as homemaker was Rs.15,000 annually
.
Slamming the
tribunal for its narrow-mindedness and saying that such a view could not be
tolerated, the Madras high court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6.76 lakh.
Justice S Vimala, pointing out that the victim's five-year-old daughter must be
missing her mother's lap, observed: “The primary responsibility of the
homemaker is to ensure that the family is happy, healthy and prosperous. To make the home as
heart of the family, giving total
relaxation and complete freedom and joy to members of the family , is the
critical role willingly undertaken and delightfully discharged. As it is
voluntary, it is quite often neglected, forgotten and devalued. Relying on Supreme Court rulings on the
issue, Justice Vimala then considered Rs.36,000/- as annual `notional income'
of the woman, and arrived at a compensation figure of 6.76 lakh and directed the authorities to
deposit the sum within three weeks.
In another case,
the State run Metropolitan Transport Corporation had argued that the death of a
23-year-old BPO employee in a road accident would not cause any loss to her
parents as she would have any way got married and left her parental home. The victim was travelling as a pillion rider
on a scooter from Alandur to Anna Nagar when the vehicle an MTC bus knocked
them from behind. Grievously injured, she died the next day. The victim was
aged 23 years at the time of accident, and was a team leader in a BPO in Anna Nagar, earning Rs.13000 per month
+ incentive. After deducting 1/3rd
of the salary towards personal expenses of the victim, the tribunal considered
Rs.8,677 as her effective income and calculated it against her age and other
relevant factors to arrive at a figure of
13.52 lakh as compensation. While the family wanted enhancement of
compensation, MTC’s counsel wanted it reduced saying she would have got married
and left parental home anyway.
The Madras high
court flayed this “gender bias“ displayed by MTC, and enhanced the compensation
payable to her family from Rs.13.57 lakh to Rs.17.3 lakh. The
Court stated that in today’s society daughters are taking as much care
of their parents as sons. There is no
intelligible bias to deny compensation to the parents in respect of the death
of a daughter.” The judges cited the Supreme Court judgments and said: “As she
died at the age of 23 years, 50% has to be added for future prospects as per
the evidence placed on record indicated that she was getting incentives
periodically.
To calculate the
final compensation the age of the victim, and not that of the parents, has to
be taken into account, they said, adding, “The selection of multiplier is based
on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There
may be a number of dependents whose age may be different. Therefore, the age of
dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation. The Court directed
the MTC to deposit the amount within two months. In this regard, the judges
said, “the compensation awarded should not be inadequate, at the same time, it
should neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient."
With regards – S.
Sampathkumar
16th Jan
2015
Judgments as
reported in Time of India.
No comments:
Post a Comment