JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises out of the award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla dated December 1, 1992. In order to appreciate the controversy, facts in brief may be noticed: Respondent Sukh Ram was the claimant before the Tribunal Appellant Himachal Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation" was the respondent-owner of the bus involved in the accident. On September 3, 1989, Sharda Devi boarded Bus HPS-4387 of the Corporation at village Tihana for Shimla. Ramesh Singh, respondent No. 2, before the Tribunal, was the Driver of the bus. The bus rolled down into a gorge near Sainj resulting into death of seven passengers. Sharda Devi sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries on September 21,1989 at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla where she was brought for treatment. The Corporation admitted the accident as well as the death of Sharda Devi. Learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the bus. He made an award of rupees 1,46,800 in favour of Sukh Ram claimant husband of deceased Sharda Devi in the following terms : (a) Loss of dependency to the petitioner : Rs. 64800.00 (b) Loss of a living being of the family Rs. 80000.00 (c) Expenses on post death ceremonies : Rs. 1000.00 (d) Litigation costs: Rs. 1000.00 Total : Rs. 146800.00 The Tribunal further directed that if the amount of award was not tendered or paid to the claimant within 40 days of the award, the Corporation shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the award. Dis-satisfied, the Corporation is in this appeal. We have heard Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation and Ms. Devyani Sharma, counsel for the claimant-respondent and have perused the record. The contention of Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant is that there was no justification to award an amount of rupees 80,000 for "loss of a living being of the family". He submits that at the most, some reasonable amount for the loss of consortium could have been awarded. It is true that after having assessed the loss of dependency to the claimant, loss of compensation on account of "loss of living being of the family" could not have been made. He submits that at the most, some reasonable amount for the loss of consortium could have been awarded. It is true that after having assessed the loss of dependency to the claimant, loss of compensation on account of "loss of living being of the family" could not have been made. However, we find that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the overall award made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, found that the deceased was employed as helper to her husband who worked as Carpenter and was earning rupees 35 per day. This evidence is not controverted. Even if the deceased was working for 240 days or eight months in a year, she was earning rupees 8,400 per annum. Deducting as l/3rd amount for her expenses accrual to the estate comes to rupees 5,600 per annum. Admittedly, the deceased was 25 years of age and husband 35 years. Taking into consideration the age of the claimant and his deceased wife, multiplier of 17 will be fair and reasonable. Thus, the amount of compensation under this head comes to rupees 95,200. Now there is unchallenged evidence on record to show that apart from working during day, she was looking after the house, her husband and other house hold affairs. It is the evidence of claimant-husband Sukh Ram (PW 1) that her wife apart from helping him in his profession was attending to domestic work. It is now well settled that pecuniary loss which a husband suffer in the case of death of a house wife consists of loss of services that the deceased provided to the husband gratuitously. Even nurse or domestic help cannot provide the services, which a wife renders in keeping the house. Gratuitous services rendered by a wife have to be replaced by keeping a domestic help or other modes, which will entail pecuniary expenditure, and to assess the compensation an appropriate multiplicand and multiplier has to be arrived at taking into consideration the relevant factors including the age of the husband and dependents. We are supported in our view by a Division Bench Authority of this Court in Rakesh Kumar and another v. Prem Lal and others, 1996 (1) Sim. L.C. 448. We are supported in our view by a Division Bench Authority of this Court in Rakesh Kumar and another v. Prem Lal and others, 1996 (1) Sim. L.C. 448. Now taking into consideration the background of the family, the age of the deceased and the claimant-husband, it will be fair and reasonable to assess the gratuitous services of the deceased to the house hold at rupees 300 per month or rupees 3,600 per annum. Applying a multiplier of 16, the claimant would be entitled to rupees 57,600 under this head. Adding usual expenses for funeral and other ceremonies of rupees 2,000, total amount of compensation comes to rupees 1, 54,800, whereas, the Tribunal has awarded rupees 1,45,800 apart from the cost assessed at rupees 1,000. The overall award thus made by the tribunal, even after accepting the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant, cannot be said to be excessive. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.