The Supreme Court has held that the contribution of a homemaker to the family and to society is so fundamental as to constitute her a ‘nation builder’, and has accordingly fixed a minimum of Rs 30,000 per month as the value of domestic care services for the purpose of computing compensation in motor accident claims. The Court has further recognised ‘loss of domestic care’ as an independent and distinct head of compensation, over and above the heads already recognised in the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh pronounced the judgment on June 11, 2026, in Shishupal @ Shish Ram and Ors. v. Surjeet and Ors. [SLP(C) No. 33915/2025], an appeal arising out of a motor accident claim. The bench rejected the long-standing judicial practice of equating a homemaker’s notional income with the wages of a skilled labourer, holding that such an approach fails to capture the true economic and social value of domestic care work.
Background
The matter arose from a motor accident claim in which the question of quantifying compensation for the death or incapacitation of a homemaker fell for the consideration of the Supreme Court. The existing framework under the Pranay Sethi judgment had recognised several conventional heads of compensation in motor accident claims but had not specifically addressed ‘loss of domestic care’ as a separate and distinct compensable category. Courts had generally followed the practice of notionally assigning to homemakers an income equivalent to that of a skilled daily wage labourer, a benchmark that the Supreme Court found to be inadequate and inconsistent with the actual economic contribution of domestic work.
Court’s Observations
While pronouncing the operative part of the judgment, Justice Karol made the following observations:
“We are also of the view that the housewife contributes to the growth of the human being and the nation. The homemaker builds the nation. So we have laid down the principles, and as a nation builder, we have the housewife, we have quantified the amount that the loss of domestic care monthly income in any event would be Rs 30,000 per month.”
The bench further stated:
“We only hope and trust that the word ‘Home Maker’ will now acquire the acronym of ‘nation builder’.”
Justice Karol also clarified that ‘loss of domestic care’ would be a ground in addition to the existing heads of damages recognised in Pranay Sethi, and would not merely substitute or subsume any existing head.
Court’s Findings
The Court held that the notion that homemakers do not ‘work’ in any economically measurable sense is fundamentally incorrect. Referring to its 2024 judgment wherein it had held that a homemaker’s deemed income must not be less than the minimum wages notified for a daily wager, the bench observed that even that standard had proved insufficient and that the time had come to evolve a more principled and realistic basis for valuation.
The bench accordingly evolved a new principle, holding that the value of domestic care services rendered by a homemaker shall be monetised at a minimum of Rs 30,000 per month for the purpose of computing compensation in motor accident claims. The Court clarified that this is a floor figure and that tribunals and courts are at liberty to award higher amounts depending on the facts and circumstances of individual cases.
The Court also emphasised that this head of damages — loss of domestic care, reflects not merely the loss of services that can be outsourced or commercially replaced, but the irreplaceable nature of the care, nurture, guidance and household management provided by a homemaker to the family unit, which has a profound and lasting impact on the development of children and the well-being of all family members.
Directions On Expeditious Disposal Of Motor Accident Claims
Beyond the substantive question of compensation, the bench also issued directions aimed at ensuring the timely disposal of motor accident claims. Referring to Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which envisages a summary procedure before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, the Court expressed the hope that the provision would be implemented “in letter and spirit”.
The Court further expressed its expectation that the Chief Justices of all High Courts would monitor motor accident claim proceedings to ensure timely adjudication and effective implementation of the principles laid down in the judgment. The detailed judgment is awaited.
Case Details
Case Title: Shishupal @ Shish Ram and Ors. v. Surjeet and Ors.
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 33915/2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: June 11, 2026
