ORDER Samvatsar, J. -- 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant u/s. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 12.8.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 42/ 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.l,44,000/- towards general damages, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.33,000/towards medical bill expenses. 2. According to the 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 MP09 S 4122 which was owned by respondent No.1, driven by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 3. Shri R.N. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side, while Shri 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 was a housewife and was doing business of selling milk and stitching and tailoring. The Tribunal assessed her income to Rs.18,000/p.m. This appeal is filed by the claimants 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 P-l 0) it appears that the age of the appellant must be between 50-55 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 the appellant was doing business of selling milk and stitching and tailoring. 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 the appellant was doing business of selling milk and stitching and tailoring. In absence of any cross-objection or challenge to the said finding on behalf of the respondent this finding cannot be interfered with. 6. As regards the income is concerned, the 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 her 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/- per month i.e., Rs.30,000/p.m. 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 the elbow 80% 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/- towards medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- which is awarded by the 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 @ 6% p.a. from the date of the appeal.