T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE authorities of the andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation are the appellants who filed the appeal assailing the Judgment and decree dated 18. 8. 1997 passed by the learned third additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in m. O. P. No. 291 of 1995. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 5 are the claimants. 6th respondent is the driver of the APSRTC bus. The husband, parents-in-law and parents of the deceased who are the Respondents 1 to 5 herein, respectively filed the claim, for a compensation of rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of Smt. B. Suseela, who met with a motor accident on 26. 1. 1995 at 6. 45 p. m. , when she was alighting the bus, on account of the rash and negligent act of the 6th respondent, who started the bus without caring to know whether the passengers got down the bus completely or not. The deceased sustained severe head injury in the accident and ultimately succumbed to the same on the next day, i. e. , on 27. 1. 1995 at King George Hospital, visakhapatnam. It is their further claim that the deceased was working in Kranthi tailoring shop of one Sri Y. S. Raju and was earning an amount of Rs. 1,300. 00 to 1,500/- per month and that, on account of her death, they suffered financially and mentally. ( 3 ) THE corporation resisted the claim on the premise that the accident was occurred on account of the gross negligence on the part of the deceased herself, who, in her anxiety jumped out of the bus so as to go to cinema theater, when the bus was in a running condition and thereby sustained injuries, and that the compensation claimed was highly excessive and exorbitant. ( 4 ) ON the issue of the alleged rash and negligent driving of the driver of the apsrtc bus bearing No. AP-9z-4706, appreciating the oral evidence of PWs. 3 and 4, of which PW-4 is the independent witness qua RW-1, the driver of the bus, eventually, the Tribunal having regard the oral evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 buttressed by Ex. A. 2, copy of the First Information report which had been promptly lodged, was of the view that it was a clear case of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 3 and 4 buttressed by Ex. A. 2, copy of the First Information report which had been promptly lodged, was of the view that it was a clear case of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. The oral evidence of pw4 was not shaken in the cross-examination. RW-1, the driver would naturally try to exculpate himself in view of the crime alleged against him, and he cannot be expected to speak against his own case. In that view of the matter, I see no illegality or irregularity committed by the Tribunal in appreciating the evidence on the point. The finding reached by the learned Tribunal is impeccable and there are no compelling circumstances to interfere with the same. ( 5 ) THE crucial issue is the issue pertaining to the assessment of compensation and the entitlement of the claimants. The father-in-law and the father of the deceased who were claimants 2 and 4 died pending adjudication of the claim and their claim was abated. The Tribunal was of the view that the 3rd claimant, the mother-in-law of the deceased could not be the legal representative or the dependant of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the tribunal considered only the claim of the claimants 1 and 5, the husband and mother of the deceased respectively. The tribunal then proceeded to assess the compensation on the basis of loss of dependency, inasmuch as the deceased who had been working as a tailor and earning rs. 1,300/- per month was contributing the same to her family. The thrust of the contention by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APSRTC seems to be that it is not at all a case where the compensation shall have to be assessed on the basis of loss of dependency, for the deceased was a housewife and the claimants 1 to 5 are not the dependants. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants represents that the Claimants 1 and 5 sufficiently answered the definition of legal representative, and therefore, they are entitled to claim compensation as the legal representatives of the deceased and that as the deceased was contributing all of her earnings to the family, there is nothing wrong in assessing the compensation on the basis of dependency. ( 7 ) THE relationship of the claimants 1 and 5 qua the deceased is not in dispute; one is the husband and the other is the mother. Having regard to the same, they are obviously the legal representatives of the deceased as per the Hindu Succession act. The expression legal representative has not been defined under the Motor vehicles Act. One has to necessarily fall back on the provisions of the Hindu succession Act to know who are the legal representatives among the class 1 and class 2 heirs. As can be seen from Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the legal representatives of the deceased who died on account of the use of the motor vehicle are entitled to claim compensation and all the legal representatives shall have to be added as eo nomine parties to the claim. ( 8 ) THE significant question, having regard to the facts of this case is whether they are entitled to claim compensation on the basis of dependency ? It is not the case of the claimants that the 1st claimant, the husband of the deceased is not at all an earning member or incapable of earning. The deceased being a married woman, her mother-the 5th claimant cannot claim herself to be the dependant of the deceased. In such cases, it is to be first decided as to whether the deceased was an earning member or was only a housewife. The method of assessment depends mainly on the status of the deceased. If she was only a housewife, the assessment shall not be on the basis of dependency. If the deceased was an earning member, certainly her contribution to the income of the family would be a loss to the family and that loss shall have to be capitalized and that forms the basis. In all cases where the married woman dies, who was only a housewife, it is no doubt true that the compensation can be claimed, but, the way in which the compensation shall have to be assessed shall be different. Although the deceased was not an earning member of the family, she being a housewife would have attended to the domestic chores and rendered services to the members of the family, particularly, the husband and children. Although the deceased was not an earning member of the family, she being a housewife would have attended to the domestic chores and rendered services to the members of the family, particularly, the husband and children. On account of the death of the deceased, certainly, it is a loss to the family who were deprived of the services of the deceased besides love and affection shown towards them. In certain cases, it may necessitate to engage a maidservant or domestic servant as the case may be to attend to the domestic chores. In the event, of incurring expenditure for that purpose it would be a loss to the estate or the income of the family and they are entitled to seek compensation for the same. The law on the point needs to be noticed here. ( 9 ) IN C. Venkatesam v. General manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road transport Corporation, 1977 ACJ 536, the Division Bench of this Court held thus:"therefore, we have to evaluate her services rendered to her family and to household. The first head under which compensation should be awarded to the claimant is the loss of domestic services. This would include the services, which she rendered by cooking the food for the family by maintaining the household by bringing up the children. . . Out of these amounts, we have to deduct what the claimant used to spend on the deceased and what he has been saving now on account of her death. " ( 10 ) IN A. Rajam v. M. Mankiya reddy, 1989 ACJ 542, a learned Single judge of this Court reviewing the entire case law on the point, including, the division bench judgment of this Court referred to supra, laid down certain guidelines in cases where the housewife dies, for assessment of compensation, thus: a. The loss to the husband and children consequent upon the death of the housewife or mother has to be computed by estimating the loss of services to the family, if there was reasonable prospect of such services being rendered freely in the future but for the death. It must be remembered that any substitute to be so employed is not likely to be as economical as the housewife. Apart from the value of obtaining substituted services, the expense of giving accommodation or food to the substitute must also be computed. It must be remembered that any substitute to be so employed is not likely to be as economical as the housewife. Apart from the value of obtaining substituted services, the expense of giving accommodation or food to the substitute must also be computed. From this total must be deducted the expense the family would have otherwise been spending for the deceased housewife. b. While estimating the services of the housewife, a narrow meaning should not be given to the meaning of the word services but should be construed broadly and one has to take into account the loss of constant love and affection by the deceased to her children, as a mother and to her husband, as a wife. The award is not diminished merely because some close relation like a grandmother is prepared to render voluntary services. c. In case the husband is compelled to give up his job to attend constantly on children who are extremely sickly, the loss of the husband s job can also be treated as loss to the family. If the deceased was contributing from her earnings to the family, that should also be treated as loss. d. If the wife was totally living away and there were no chances of reconciliation, the loss of services cannot be treated as a loss. But if there were reasonable chances of reconciliation, 50 per cent of the loss of services could be awarded. " ( 11 ) RECENTLY, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Latha Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 ACJ 1735, held in Para 10 thus: "so far as the deceased house wives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the house wives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. " ( 12 ) IN M. P. S. R. T. C. , Bhairagha bhopal v. Sudhakar, 1977 ACJ 290, it was held thus: "the husband may not be dependent on the wife s income. The basis of assessing the damages payable to the husband for the death of his wife would be similar. " ( 13 ) IN C. K. Subramonia Aiyer v. Kunhikuttan Nair, 1970 ACJ 110, it was held thus:"it is not a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action under the Fatal accidents Act, 1846. The basis of assessing the damages payable to the husband for the death of his wife would be similar. " ( 13 ) IN C. K. Subramonia Aiyer v. Kunhikuttan Nair, 1970 ACJ 110, it was held thus:"it is not a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action under the Fatal accidents Act, 1846. That the deceased should have been actively earning money or moneys worth or contributing to the support of the plaintiff on or before the date of the death provided that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit from the continuance of the life. " ( 14 ) IN U. P. State Road Transport corporation v. Deepthi, 1985 ACJ 691, a bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the husband who was not dependant on his wife is entitled to compensation on account of the death of the wife. ( 15 ) FROM the above, it is obvious that the compensation shall have to be assessed in the case of death of a housewife resulting in loss to the husband and children, by estimating the loss of services to the family and where the woman died has every prospects of earning, though not in present time, but in future that shall have to be quantified, as a contribution to the family, since both the husband and children, are not the dependants of the woman died. ( 16 ) AS regards the assessment of just compensation, evidence is sought to be adduced to show that the deceased was working as tailor in the tailoring shop of p. W. 2. Ex. A. l-salary certificate issued by p. W. 2 has been filed in this regard to buttress the same. However, whether P. W. 2 has been really running a tailoring shop or not itself is in dispute. The Tribunal below, which appreciated the evidence, was of the view that the evidence of P. W. 2 was reliable. To interfere with this fact finding, I see no compelling reasons. Nonetheless on the point of income of the deceased, I am of the considered view that having regard to the usual tendency to exaggerate the income in a claim of this sort so as to claim more compensation it cannot be treated as the conclusive one. To interfere with this fact finding, I see no compelling reasons. Nonetheless on the point of income of the deceased, I am of the considered view that having regard to the usual tendency to exaggerate the income in a claim of this sort so as to claim more compensation it cannot be treated as the conclusive one. Therefore, on some reasonable hypothesis, the income of the deceased shall have to be fixed not as spoken to by P. W. 2 for want of record. The income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs. 900. 00 per month and l/3rd thereof shall have to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased. The balance would be the amount, which the deceased would have contributed towards the family. The Tribunal below assessed the compensation on the basis of dependency, which is not correct. As discussed hereinabove, it may be towards the loss of services or towards the contribution of the deceased to the family. Applying the multiplier as fixed by Tribunal below as 16, the monetary loss can be fixed at Rs. 1,15,200. 00 (Rs. 600/- x 12 x 16 ). Furthermore, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 2,000. 00 towards funeral expenses; an amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 towards loss of consortium to the first claimant; and amount of Rs. 2,500. 00 for the loss to estate. The claimants are entitled to non-pecuniary damages, which include the loss to estate also. The award should contain a minimum of Rs. 7,500. 00 on this head. In all, the claimants 1 and 5 are, therefore, entitled to rs. 1,29,700/- (Rs. 1,15,200/- + Rs. 2,000. 00 + rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 7,500. 00) which can be rounded off to Rs. 1,30,000. 00 (Rupees one lakh and thirty thousand ). This amount shall be paid by the appellants with interest at nine (9) per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. Out of this amount, the first claimant/husband of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 75,000. 00 and the fifth claimant/mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 55,000. 00. ( 17 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Under the circumstances, no separate order as to costs.