JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Appellant is aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmour District, at Nahan, H.P. in M.A.C. Petition No. 17-N/2 of 1994. By means of impugned, award a sum of Rs. 64,000 has been awarded to her and against the respondents No. 1 and 2. Since this amount included loss of future income to her, as such it was ordered only a sum of Rs. 29,440 shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 12.7.1994 till its realisation. 2. With a view to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the parties in this case, facts of the case need to be briefly referred to. 3. These are that the appellant while boarding bus bearing registration No. HP-18-3534 at Nahan on 20.1.1994 met with an accident resulting in her sustaining injuries to her pelvis. Though the factum of accident was denied by all the respondents and even by respondent No. 3 when he appeared as RW-1 being driver of the bus, but fact remains that the respondents have accepted those findings by not filing appeal on such findings recorded against them by the Tribunal below on issue No. 1. As such that chapter is closed. They could challenge those findings by filing cross objections. That has also not been done. As such facts in that behalf are not being gone into in this appeal. Issues framed by the Tribunal below were as under:— 1. Whether the petitioner was involved in an accident of bus No. HP-18-3534 on 18.1.1994, when the said bus was being driven by respondent No. 3. If so whether the accident, in question, took place due to rash or negligent driving of said bus by the respond- 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner suffered injuries as a result of the said accident and is entitled to compensation, if so how much and from whom? OPA 3. Relief. 4. Appellant has appeared as PW-1, her husband Santan Singh appeared as PW-2. Ram Sarup Chauhan has appeared as PW-3 and Dr. Puttaraj from P.G.I. Chandigarh has appeared as PW-4. As already noted, driver appeared as RW-1, but his evidence does not have any material bearing so far controversy involved in this appeal is concerned. 5. OPA 3. Relief. 4. Appellant has appeared as PW-1, her husband Santan Singh appeared as PW-2. Ram Sarup Chauhan has appeared as PW-3 and Dr. Puttaraj from P.G.I. Chandigarh has appeared as PW-4. As already noted, driver appeared as RW-1, but his evidence does not have any material bearing so far controversy involved in this appeal is concerned. 5. Appellant has stated that immediately after accident, she was taken to Nahan Hospital and from there to P.G.I. Chandigarh. She could regain consciousness at Chandigarh. Her husband (PW-2) had taken her to P.G.I. Eight operations were conducted on her at Chandigarh. Two more were required to be performed. Her statement was recorded on 13.1.1995. 6. According to her, in her both groins, steel rods were inserted and she was confined to bed for six months. She was having severe pains even then. She was unable to sleep or walk. From Chandigarh she was brought to Shimla where she felt difficulty in answering the call of nature as well as in urination. Therefore, she was taken to Snowdon Hospital, where she was operated upon. Every month she was going to P.G.I. Chandigarh in taxi for her medical check up. Medicines are prescribed. Her husband was looking after her. Besides this, a servant was employed at Rs. 200 per month, in addition to clothing and food. Earlier appellant used to do the entire household work. Now, she cannot do anything. Per her statement, Rs. 70,000 had been spent on coming and going to Chandigarh as well as on medicines. While in P.G.I., she was attended upon by three attendants. She placed on record on Disability Certificate (Ext. P-l). This shows disability of 40% of lower limbs. 7. She has further gone on record to state that after this accident, cohabitation between the husband and wife has come to an end. It may be noted that she has been cross-examined on all aspects other than the expenditure part and cession of cohabitation between the appellant and her husband. No cross-examination was directed regarding her state of health, number of operations the appellant had undergone as also her finding it difficult to answer the call of nature and in urination. What is its effect will be dealt with hereinafter. No cross-examination was directed regarding her state of health, number of operations the appellant had undergone as also her finding it difficult to answer the call of nature and in urination. What is its effect will be dealt with hereinafter. She has specifically stated in cross-examination that expenditure on medicines had been reimbursed, but again stated that it had not been reimbursed as her husband does not get pension as also got no money. Her husband was employed as Joint Secretary in the Education Board who retired in 1994. She denied the suggestion that employees of the Board were being given medical reimbursement. 8. PW-2 Santan Singh has stated that his wife met with the accident. She was taken to Nahan Hospital, where doctors advised that she needs to be taken to P.G.I. Chandigarh. She was taken to Chandigarh in a taxi. She remained there upto 1.7.1995 as indoor patient. He, his brother and son were constantly there at P.G.I. Chandigarh attending on the appellant. He has further stated that in the Board, no pension is given after retirement and none of his medical bills concerning appellant were reimbursed till the date of his statement. He has spent about Rs. 98,000. In cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that during service, employees are reimbursed medical expenses. He denied the suggestion that he was employee of the Board till April, 1994. He further stated that he sought retirement in April, 1993. 9. PW-3 is the eye witness. His statement is not relevant in the context of this appeal. As such is not being referred to. 10. PW-4 Dr. Puttaraja has stated that while he was posted at P.G.I. Chandigarh, appellant was treated in his unit for fracture of pelvis of right side with sacro illaic disruption. She remained admitted from 20.1.1994 to 7.2.1994. This witness proved Ext. P-l, Disability Certificate and Ext. P-2, Discharge summary of the appellant. According to this witness, injury had caused some gynecological and urological problems. These were to persist till the appellant was in a position to lift her legs and put them apart. Urinary incontinence would continue, though its degree could be reduced by conducting operation. He denied the suggestion in cross-examination that if the lady climbs stairs or otherwise walks that would cure her gynecological and urological problem. 11. This is the entire relevant and material evidence in this case. Urinary incontinence would continue, though its degree could be reduced by conducting operation. He denied the suggestion in cross-examination that if the lady climbs stairs or otherwise walks that would cure her gynecological and urological problem. 11. This is the entire relevant and material evidence in this case. Breakup of the awarded amount also needs to be noted which is as under:— (i) Expenditure on medicines: Rs. 10,468.00 (ii) Lodging charges : Rs. 1,451.00 (iii) Taxi charges : Rs. 3,500.00 (iv) Loss of future earnings: Rs. 34,560.00 (v) Pain and sufferings: Rs. 10,000.00 (vi) Loss of enjoyment of life: Rs. 4,000.00 Total :— Rs. 63,979.75 The total amount of compensation has been rounded of to Rs. 64,000. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded is meagre as well as illusory and is an excuse in its name. According to her, looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the evidence on record, her client is entitled to atleast compensation as claimed. We may notice here that in the claim petition, compensation claimed was in the sum of Rs. three lacs. We may further notice that no attempt was made either to amend the petition or to lead any other or further evidence to suggest as to what is the present state of health of the appellant. As such we are dealing with the matter as it is. 13. So far appellant is concerned, she is a non-earning person, being a housewife. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the compensation on the basis of her actual earnings. We may add here that this does not mean that because she was not in service, so she was not rendering any service at all to her family. It is a matter of common knowledge that in our society, a house wife in fact renders service throughout her life to the family (unless she is physically incapacitated or falls sick) for a pretty long period. As such while assessing compensation in case of a house wife, as in the present appeal, this factor has to be kept in view by us. 14. We may also notice that the learned Tribunal below after taking note of Ext. P-l, has reduced the disability to 20%. Though certificate speaks of 40% disability of lower limbs, it has been reduced to half taking it of the whole body. 15. 14. We may also notice that the learned Tribunal below after taking note of Ext. P-l, has reduced the disability to 20%. Though certificate speaks of 40% disability of lower limbs, it has been reduced to half taking it of the whole body. 15. In this behalf it may be noted that it is not always necessary that physical disability will be the sole and guiding factor while assessing compensation. Further in this case on what legitimate basis disability was reduced, when a reference is made to the impugned award, no reasons have been given by the Tribunal below. While taking her contribution to the family at Rs. 1,200 per month, loss due to her disability has been assessed as Rs. 240 per month or say Rs. 2,880 per annum by applying the multiplier of 12. Loss of her future earning has been assessed at Rs. 34,560. After arriving at this figure, further compensation was allowed in her favour as noted hereinabove. 16. We may notice here that the learned Tribunal below while assessing this amount, has ignored the medical evidence as well as the statement of the appellant. She has categorically stated that she was operated upon eight times at Chandigarh and once at Shimla. She was finding it difficult to go to answer the call of nature as well as while urinating. In addition to this, she has also stated that a domestic servant had been engaged at Rs. 200 per month besides food and clothing being provided to him described her state of health, which was miserable. This aspect of the case has been completely ignored by the Tribunal below while assessing the compensation for pain and suffering. In addition to this, her statement and that of her husband so far expenditure part is concerned till the statement was made i.e. 13.1.1995 was also completely ignored when a total sum of Rs. 13,968.75 has been awarded towards medicines lodging and taxi charges. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 4,000 has been awarded towards loss of enjoyment of life. 17. So far loss of enjoyment of life is concerned, appellant has stated that cohabitation between her and her husband has come to an end because of the accident in question. 13,968.75 has been awarded towards medicines lodging and taxi charges. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 4,000 has been awarded towards loss of enjoyment of life. 17. So far loss of enjoyment of life is concerned, appellant has stated that cohabitation between her and her husband has come to an end because of the accident in question. It hardly needs to be emphasised that in married life in addition to looking after the family and discharging other obligations as a dutiful wife, appellant has been deprived of marital bliss because of cohabitation having come to an end. Depending upon the strata of the society to which the parties belong to, on the failure of the wife to discharge her marital duties towards the husband, it could even result in bringing an end to the matrimony. It is now well settled that consummation of marriage and continuance of physical relationship between the husband and wife is an integral, essential as well as necessary part of a matrimonial bond. This aspect of the case has not at all been examined by the Tribunal below. As such on account of loss of enjoyment of life, the appellant is held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 75,000. 18. So far compensation for pain and suffering is concerned, it needs to be enhanced. Right from the time of accident, and atleast till her statement was recorded, there is evidence to suggest that she had been suffering throughout, firstly because of injuries, then because of operations at P.G.I. Chandigarh and at Shimla and then when she stated that she was confined to bed for six months. In these circumstances, we feel that she is entitled to a minimum sum of Rs. 75,000 for pain and suffering. 19. So far expenditure incurred on the fitness/treatment of the appellant and her transportation as well as for boarding and lodging etc. is concerned, husband of the appellant has stated that about Rs. 98,000 was I spent in all, whereas appellant herself has stated that a sum of Rs. 70,000 was spent. Taking the amount to be on lower side as stated by the appellant, we see no reason why Rs. 75,000 be not allowed to her towards total expenditure incurred so far treatment/medicines, transportation etc. is concerned. 20. 98,000 was I spent in all, whereas appellant herself has stated that a sum of Rs. 70,000 was spent. Taking the amount to be on lower side as stated by the appellant, we see no reason why Rs. 75,000 be not allowed to her towards total expenditure incurred so far treatment/medicines, transportation etc. is concerned. 20. So far pecuniary loss to the family in the instant case is concerned, appellant is not only precluded from rendering service to the family, but has also forced the family to employ a domestic servant as a substitute for the services being rendered by the appellant. This was in 1993-94. Now we are in 2003. Price escalation as well as the purchasing power of money have also to be taken into consideration. In these circumstances, we feel that the appellant is entitled to compensation under this head also. We feel that it needs to be fixed at Rs. 500 per month for atleast for a period of 12-1/2 years for which loss of future earning has been allowed by the Tribunal. This comes to Rs. 500 x 12 x 12-1/2 = Rs. 75,000. As the measure to assess the loss in the instant case would be the cost of substituting the service being rendered by the appellant. 21. Service being rendered by a house wife to her family is not to be interpreted in its narrow sense, reason being that there are no fixed working hours in her case as she works whole time throughout the year, without holiday or seeking leave etc. This is a vital aspect of the case while assessing compensation in case of a claimant like the appellant. Reference in this behalf can be made to a Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar and another v. Prem Lai and others, 1996 (2) SLJ 1191. . 22. So far percentage of disability qua body is concerned, it cannot be accepted as disability so far assessment of earning capacity of a person is concerned. As it will depend upon the use of disabled part of the body. This was the view taken in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Guru Charan Saren and another, 1992 ACJ 693. 23. As it will depend upon the use of disabled part of the body. This was the view taken in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Guru Charan Saren and another, 1992 ACJ 693. 23. In Gurdipsingh v. Chauhan Bhupendrakumar Udesingh and another, AIR 1980 Gujarat 44, it was held as under:— "The loss of bodily integrity gives a right to damages even if there is ho damage at all to the earning capacity or even to enjoyment of life. But damages then are considered commensurate with the extent, gravity and duration of injury. The test is whether the physical integrity of the injured is broken, whether it is temporary or permanent and the extent to which it will be reflected in his earning capacity." 24. This squarely covers the present case looking to the nature of disability sustained by the appellant. In the context of the extent of injuries sustained, we are of the view that loss of earning capacity on account of disability suffered by a person like the appellant, cannot be calculated in terms of the percentage only. Repercussions and prospects of earning of injured have to be kept in view in the background of resultant disability. Reference in this behalf can be made to a decision of the Apex Court in Kapil Kumar v. Kudrat Ali and others, (2002) 4 SCC 337. 25. On an over all view of the whole case, and particularly keeping in view the above discussion, we are satisfied that this appeal deserves to be allowed and compensation enhanced which is worked out as under:— 1. Expenditure on medicines lodging charges, taxi charges Rs. 75,000 2. Pain and suffering: Rs. 75,000 3. Loss of enjoyment of life: Rs. 75,000 4. Loss of future earnings: Rs. 75,000 Total :— Rs. 3,00,000 26. While allowing this appeal and modifying the impugned award, it is held that the appellant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 12.7.1994 till 31.1.2001 and thereafter at the rate of 9 per cent per annum w.e.f. 1.2.2001 till the entire amount is deposited in the Registry of this Court. 2,25,000 from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 12.7.1994 till 31.1.2001 and thereafter at the rate of 9 per cent per annum w.e.f. 1.2.2001 till the entire amount is deposited in the Registry of this Court. Any amount paid to the appellant either under "No Fault, Liability" or deposited in terms of the impugned award shall be deducted out of the amount awarded in terms of this judgment. Costs on the parties. Deposit to be made as ordered hereinabove by or before 31.5.2003. On such deposit being made, the entire amount to be remitted to the appellant in her Savings Bank Account, number whereof will be furnished by her on or before the said date.