JUDGMENT N. KIRUBAKARAN, J. Tamil Nadu In this case, the deceased Ellis Mary was hit by an Ambassador Car belonging to the seventh respondent which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. She also sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to the hospital. The claim of the respondents 1 to 6 was that she was an agriculture coolie and also doing household work earning Rs. 5,000/- p.m and claimed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). 2. The appellant contested the claim petition. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,22,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Twenty Two Thousand only), fixing the monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- p.m and the age of the deceased at 27 and adopted multiplier 18. 3. Mr. S. Muthalraj, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the deceased was only a house wife and the amount fixed at Rs. 3,000/- was on the higher side and further contended that there was no documentary evidence to prove her age and hence, sought for variation in the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 443 (A.P.), in which it was held that for the death of a house wife, Rs. 750/- p.m was fixed. Relying upon the said judgment, he sought for fixing the monthly income as Rs. 750/- p.m. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S. Sivathilagar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6/claimants, relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC 3218 : (2001) 8 SCC 197 : 2001-II-LLJ-1559, wherein for the death of the house wife, Rs. 3,000/- p.m was fixed. In paragraph No.10 of the said judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows at p. 1566 of LLJ: Tamil Nadu"10.... It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration, the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum....." 6. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration, the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum....." 6. He also relied upon another judgment of the Delhi High Court in (2001) 1 TN MAC 104 (Del.). In that case, the compensation was sought for the death of a house wife. After quoting the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (supra), the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court, observed as follows: Tamil Nadu "The role of the house-wife in running a house is not that of rendering services as a slave. Her contribution to keeping the family together, providing household services besides matrimonial duties, cannot be treated lightly. It has got nothing to do with the earning capacity of the husband which is an addition to what is taken care of by the house-wife. No matter, what the status of the family may be, the contribution of the house-wife towards household must be treated to be at minimum Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) per month for an age group of 34-59 years, as has been laid by the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (supra) case." 7. Immortal Thiruvalluar also praised the role of the wife in one's life and devoted a Chapter called The first couplet reads as follows: Tamil Nadu "A true wife she whose virtues match her home Tamil Nadu And who lives within her husband's means." 8. When the importance of the house wife has been praised and recognised about more than 2000 years ago, her contribution to the family in many ways cannot be estimated much less underestimated. 9. In fact, the husband/spouse would be able to do his work without any distraction about the family matters like running family, educating their children, etc. is due to the devoted life and sacrifice being made by the house wife and that is the reason why the literature in any language and every culture praises the role of the house wife. No amount of money would be equal to the service rendered by the house wife. Her role is multi-facet and different and distinct as wife, mother, daughter-in-law, grandmother. No amount of money would be equal to the service rendered by the house wife. Her role is multi-facet and different and distinct as wife, mother, daughter-in-law, grandmother. The love, affection she shows, care she takes and the service rendered by her with patience, to each and every member of the family cannot be done by anybody except the house wife. House wife is seen as custodian and preserver of our eternal culture which has been passed on to generation after generation. In view of the judgment in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (supra) case and other judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and also this Court, there is no necessity to interfere with the amount fixed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the amount fixed at Rs. 3,000/- p.m towards monthly income of the deceased, is affirmed. 10. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal went by the post-morterm report and the same cannot be interfered with. There was also no contra evidence to dispute the same. In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.