The Karnataka High Court has held that the term “homemaker” is gender-neutral and can include men, working professionals and breadwinners who also take care of their families at home. Court made the observation while holding that a woman with a postgraduate qualification and previous professional experience could also be treated as a homemaker for calculating compensation following a motor accident.
The bench of Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha made the observation while partly allowing a compensation appeal filed by Pampapal, who was injured in a road accident involving a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus in October 2013.
Who can be considered a homemaker
Pampapal had obtained a Master’s degree in Biotechnology and had worked as a Guest Lecturer at a college between August 2012 and March 2013, earning ₹35,000 per month. However, there was no evidence that she was working when the accident occurred.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, had therefore declined to award her compensation towards loss of future earnings. The tribunal had awarded ₹4,55,243 as compensation with 8% interest.
Before the high court, Pampapal’s counsel argued that even if she was not working as a lecturer at the time of the accident, her permanent disability had affected her ability to perform her responsibilities as a homemaker and that this loss was also required to be compensated.
KSRTC opposed the claim, arguing that since Pampapal had a postgraduate qualification, she could not be regarded as a homemaker.
The high court rejected the argument.
“Every woman who renders services to her family members at home is liable to be regarded as a ‘HOMEMAKER’ irrespective of the fact that such woman holds higher qualification either it is a Degree or Post Graduation or a Doctorate,” Court said.
Court further held that a woman did not have to be exclusively engaged in household work to qualify as a homemaker.
“In the humble opinion of this court, even a working woman or a professional can be considered to be a home maker so long as such woman renders services at home taking care and looking after the welfare of the family members,” it said.
Working women and professionals can also be homemakers
Court said it was not necessary to establish that a woman was illiterate, stayed at home 24×7 or “attends only household work and nothing more” to consider her a homemaker.
Explaining its understanding of homemaking, the court said: “Any individual who tirelessly strives, showers unconditional love, sacrifices personal comfort at times and ultimately becomes a pillar for happy and stable family is a homemaker.”
“These qualities are illustrative but not exhaustive,” it added.
Court then specifically broadened the concept beyond women, holding: “The word ‘HOMEMAKER’ is gender-neutral. A homemaker thus can be male or female. Also covers working person or bread winner or wage earner.”
It consequently held that Pampapal “can well be considered to be a home maker.”
Homemaker’s notional income
Court then proceeded to quantify the economic loss resulting from Pampapal’s disability.
Since the accident occurred in 2013, court took ₹8,000 per month as Pampapal’s notional income, noting that the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority was adopting that figure during the relevant period for persons unable to produce substantive proof of their occupation and earnings.
Court noted that Pampapal was around 25 years old when the accident occurred. Applying the multiplier of 18 and retaining the tribunal’s assessment of 10% whole-body disability, it calculated the financial loss arising from her permanent physical disability at ₹1,72,800.
KSRTC ordered to pay ₹24,000 for loss of homemaking services
Court separately considered the effect of her injuries on her ability to perform her duties towards her family.
Her injuries included a comminuted fracture of the talus with dislocation of the ankle joint and fracture of the medial malleolus. Considering the nature of the injuries, the court said Pampapal “could have taken bed rest at least for a period of 3 months.”
“Therefore the claimant being a homemaker might not have rendered any service to family,” it said, awarding ₹24,000 for the financial loss arising from her inability to perform her family duties during those three months.
The total additional compensation was thus calculated at ₹1,96,800.
Court rejects KSRTC’s ‘double benefit’ argument on medical insurance
Court also rejected KSRTC’s argument that medical expenses should be deducted because the claimant had received reimbursement from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company.
The high court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Dolly Satish Gandhi, which held that medical insurance reimbursement cannot be treated as a “double benefit”.
Court noted that the insurance payment arose from a contractual arrangement for which a premium had been paid, while compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act was a statutory entitlement.
Court held that the contractual reimbursement received by the claimant could not allow the person responsible for the accident to escape liability. “Such claim cannot be termed to be double benefit,” court said.
Court dismissed KSRTC’s appeal and partly allowed Pampapal’s appeal. It enhanced the compensation awarded by the tribunal by ₹1,96,800. The enhanced amount will carry 6% annual interest from the date of the petition until deposit, excluding a delay of 114 days.
KSRTC was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.
Case: Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Pampapal & connected matter
Judgment date: August 4, 2026
Bench: Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha