New Delhi: In a landmark ruling that could reshape compensation in motor accident cases across India, the Supreme Court has held that the unpaid work performed by homemakers carries a minimum monetary value of Rs 30,000 per month, and that families deprived of such care are entitled to compensation under a separate head of damages.

The verdict answers a question that has long remained at the heart of legal and social debate: What is the economic value of a homemaker's contribution? According to the apex court, it is far more than invisible labour confined within four walls.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh ruled that the loss of domestic care suffered by a family due to the death or incapacitation of a homemaker must be independently recognised while calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Pronouncing the judgment in an appeal arising from a motor accident claim, Justice Karol underlined that homemakers play a foundational role not only in running households but also in shaping society itself.

"We are also of the view that the housewife contributes to the growth of the human being and the nation. The homemaker builds nation," Justice Karol observed while delivering the verdict.

The court said that, at the very least, the value of domestic services rendered by a homemaker should be assessed at Rs 30,000 per month while determining compensation. It further clarified that compensation for the "loss of domestic care" would be awarded in addition to the conventional heads of damages already recognised by the Supreme Court in the landmark Pranay Sethi judgment.

The Bench expressed hope that the term "homemaker" would increasingly be viewed through the lens of nation-building rather than unpaid household work.

"We only hope and trust that the word Home Maker will now acquire the acronym of nation builder," Justice Karol remarked.

The ruling builds upon the Supreme Court's evolving jurisprudence on the economic recognition of unpaid domestic labour. In a significant judgment delivered in 2024, the court had rejected the notion that homemakers do not engage in productive work, holding that their notional income should not fall below the minimum wages prescribed for daily wage earners.

Apart from redefining compensation principles, the Supreme Court also turned its attention to delays that frequently plague motor accident claims.

Referring to Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which envisages a summary procedure before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs), the Bench stressed that the provision must be implemented in both "letter and spirit" to ensure quicker relief for victims and their families.

The court further said it expects Chief Justices of High Courts across the country to monitor the functioning of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to ensure timely disposal of cases and effective implementation of the principles laid down in the judgment.