S. S. SAMVATSAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the claimant under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 12. 8. 2004, passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 42 of 2004, whereby the claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,27,000 to the present appellant as compensation for the injuries sustained by her. The Tribunal awarded an amount of rs. 1,44,000 towards general damages, rs. 50,000 towards pain and suffering and rs. 33,000 towards medical expenses. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to claimant she was 42 years of age at the time of accident and was injured in an accident dated 20. 12. 2003 caused with Tata Sumo vehicle MP 09-S 4122 which was owned by respondent No. 1, driven by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. ( 3 ) MR. R. N. Dave, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side, while Mr. R. J. Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the amount awarded by the Claims tribunal is just and proper. ( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal found that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. The tribunal has also found that the injury has resulted in amputation of the present appellant from the elbow of the right hand. The Claims Tribunal found that the present appellant is a housewife and was doing business of selling milk and stitching and tailoring. The Claims Tribunal assessed her income at Rs. 18,000 p. a. This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. ( 5 ) HENCE the only question involved in the appeal is about the age and income of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the appellant was about 50 years of age at the time of accident. There is no documentary evidence on record to prove the exact age of the appellant. From the perusal of the photograph, Annexure P10, it appears that the age of appellant must be between 50 and 55 years. The Tribunal has found her age to be 50. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. As regards the income is concerned, there is no documentary evidence on record. From the perusal of the photograph, Annexure P10, it appears that the age of appellant must be between 50 and 55 years. The Tribunal has found her age to be 50. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. As regards the income is concerned, there is no documentary evidence on record. However, the claims Tribunal has found that appellant was doing the business of selling milk and stitching and tailoring. In absence of any cross-objection or challenge to the said finding on behalf of the respondents this finding cannot be interfered with. ( 6 ) AS regards the income is concerned, claims Tribunal has found that her income was Rs. 18,000 p. a. While assessing this income we find that the Claims Tribunal has not assessed the services rendered by her in her household affairs. The appellant was a married lady. Hence this court can safely hold that she must be rendering some services to her family members. If this service is taken into consideration the amount of her monthly income will come to Rs. 2,500, i. e. , Rs. 30,000 p. a. She is aged 50-55 years. Hence multiplier of 11 will be applicable. The amount will come to Rs. 3,30,000 as there is amputation of her right hand from elbow 80 per cent of the said amount will come to Rs. 2,64,000. ( 7 ) APART from this amount the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 33,000 towards medical expenses as she submitted bills around Rs. 31,000 which the Claims tribunal has rounded to Rs. 33,000. Hence the appellant is entitled to Rs. 33,000 for medical expenses and Rs. 50,000 which is awarded by Claims Tribunal towards pain and suffering. Thus the total amount will come to Rs. 3,47,000 which is rounded to rs. 3,50,000. The appeal stands allowed. The appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of appeal. Appeal allowed. .