JUDGMENT Perturbed and agitated over an observation of the tribunal in its order dt. 6-12-2003, wherein it portrayed the claimant as “only an house wife” made her prefer the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is the amount of compensation which a housewife who is a non-earning member is entitled to when she suffers 40% disability in a road accident. 3. The present appeal has a chequered history. Originally, the injured filed MVOP No.582/1994 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur. The tribunal by its order dt. 27-7-1997 awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant preferred CMA No.1066/1999 before this Honourable Court and this Honourable Court by its order dt. 23-6-2003 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the tribunal with the following observation: “In this appeal the counsel for the appellant contended that the Court below erred in not awarding sufficient compensation though sufficient material was produced by the claimant injured. Though the claimant produced medical certificates like discharge certificate, disability certificate, there was no proper proof in regard thereto. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment delivered today in CMA No.489/99 though medical evidence was produced there was no proper proof in regard thereto and mere producing Doctor certificate is not enough and the Court should not base upon its findings on the production of documents and each case has to be decided independently. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration by the Court below.” 4. As per the orders of this Honoruable Court, notices were issued to both parties and an opportunity was given to adduce evidence, if any. But both parties reported no further evidence and argued the mater. The tribunal after re-appreciating the evidence awarded only a sum of Rs.50,746/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 6. But both parties reported no further evidence and argued the mater. The tribunal after re-appreciating the evidence awarded only a sum of Rs.50,746/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 6. The brief facts which are necessary for proper adjudication of the appeal are as under: On l6-7-1994 at about 7 PM while the claimant was coming from Guntur in RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 9Z 3365 to see her mother who was admitted in Guntur General Hospital, Guntur, the said bus dashed against the stationed lorry on the road margin near Nallapadu. Because of the said accident the claimant sustained crush injury to her left hand. According to the claim petition, the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the RTC bus. 7. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation resisted the claim by filing counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. According to them, the claimant was responsible for the accident as she kept her hand out of the window which touched the angular of the lorry stationed by the side of the road. According to them, there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. 8. In support of her claim, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2-the Doctor who treated her. She also got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Ex.X-1. On behalf of the respondent-Corporation, R.W.1 was examined. 9. The finding of the tribunal with regard to accident taking place on 6-7-1994 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the RTC bus remained unchallenged since the said finding has not been challenged by the Corporation either in the earlier round of litigation or later. 10. The only point that remains for consideration is whether the claimant who is a housewife is entitled for compensation and if so to what amount? 11. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that the claimant sustained 40% disability and she is entitled to more than what has been awarded by the tribunal. According to him, the claimant was looking after timber depot and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that the claimant sustained 40% disability and she is entitled to more than what has been awarded by the tribunal. According to him, the claimant was looking after timber depot and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Further the claimant sustained injuries to her left hand, whereby the movements of her left elbow are restricted and the left humerus was shortened by one inch. It is contended that the said version of P.W.1 is supported by the evidence of P.W.2 who categorically stated that the claimant sustained 40% disability, which is permanent. 12. `The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation would contend that there is no evidence on record to show that the claimant was an earning member of the family. No documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate her claim. Ex.A-9-certifciate issued by A.C.T.O. Darsi, which was produced by the claimant does not indicate that she was doing any business but it only shows that her husband was doing timber business. He would further contend that 40% disability mentioned by P.W.2 is not permanent and it will not affect her loss in earning capacity. He would further contend that the question of loss of earnings would not arise as the claimant is only a housewife and the said disability will not cause any inconvenience to her while attending the household work. 12-A. Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer to the findings, opinions and observations made by the Apex Court and also by the High Court while dealing with the cases arising out of the death of housewives. 13. The Madras High Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., V. DEEPIKA (2009) 6 MLJ 1005 ), a reference to which has been made in ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL V. NATIONAL INSUANCE CO., LTD., (2010) 9 SCC 218 )observed as under:- "9. THE UNICEF in 2000, noted that "unpaid care work is the foundation of human experience". THE care work is that which is done by a woman as a mother and definitely in India, the woman herself will be the last person to give this role an economic value, given the social concept of the role of a mother. THE UNICEF in 2000, noted that "unpaid care work is the foundation of human experience". THE care work is that which is done by a woman as a mother and definitely in India, the woman herself will be the last person to give this role an economic value, given the social concept of the role of a mother. But when we are evaluating the loss suffered by the child because her mother died in an accident, we think we must give a monetary value to the work of a care giver, for after all, the home is the basic unit on which our civilised society rests..." "...that there have been efforts to understand the value of a homemaker's unpaid labour by different methods. One is, the opportunity cost which evaluates her wages by assessing what she would have earned had she not remained at home, viz., the opportunity lost. The second is, the partnership method which assumes that a marriage is an equal economic partnership and in this method, the homemaker's salary is valued at half her husband's salary. Yet another method is to evaluate homemaking by determining how much it would cost to replace the homemaker with paid workers. This is called the Replacement Method." 14. In RAJAM V. M. MANIKYA REDDY (1989 ACJ 542 (AP), this Honourable Court gave wider meaning to the word ‘services' in cases relating to award of compensation to the dependents of a deceased wife/mother. The relevant portion in the judgment is as under: “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. From this total must be deducted the expense the family would have otherwise been spending for the deceased 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. While estimating the 'services' of the housewife, a narrow meaning should not be given to the meaning of the word 'services' but it should be construed broadly and one has to take into account the loss of personal care and attention' 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." 15. In LATA WADHWA V. STATE OF BIHAR (2001) 8 SCC 197 ) the Apex Court while considering the issue of payment of compensation to the housewives in a case where a devastating fire engulfed the VIP pandal while the 150th anniversary of Sir Jamshedji Tata was celebrated leading to death of number of people including housewives, children etc., laid down guidelines for assessing the income of housewives. 16. A Division Bench of this Honourable Court in BM, ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., V. DR. C.C.O. REDDY ( 2004(4) ALD 883 (DB)held that Court has to take into consideration the loss of supervisory service of the deceased-house wife, in managing the house before awarding compensation. 17. The Supreme Court in ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL (2 supra) observed as under: “…We often forget that the time spent by women in doing household work as homemakers is the time which they can devote to paid work or to their education. This lack of sensitiveness and recognition of their work mainly contributes to women's high rate of poverty and their consequential oppression in society, as well as various physical, social and psychological problems.” The Apex Court further observed that “the courts and tribunals should do well to factor these considerations in assessing compensation for housewives who are victims of road accident and quantifying the amount in the name of fixing just compensation.” 18. The Apex Court further held at para 35 as under: “In our view, it is highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to compute the compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased wife/ mother, who does not have regular income, by comparing her services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee, who works for a fixed period. The gratuitous services rendered by wife/mother to the husband and children cannot be equated with the services of an employee and no evidence or data can possibly be produced for estimating the value of such services. It is virtually impossible to measure in terms of money the loss of personal care and attention suffered by the husband and children on the demise of the housewife…” 19. The contributions made by the housewife to the house are unascertainable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The loss of supervisory services of the wife in managing the house should be taken into consideration before awarding compensation. The gratuitous services rendered by her, with love and affection to the members of the family cannot be equated in term of money and none can be a substitute to her. Unmindful of the time and period of the day, the wife/mother will be employed in taking care of all the requirements of husband and children. As held by the Apex Court, it is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family. However, for the purpose of awarding compensation to the dependants or for the deficiency in service due to disability sustained by the wife/mother due to an accident, some monetary value to the work of a care giver has to be made. As held, while estimating the services of a housewife, a narrow meaning should not be given to that of services, but should be construed broadly by taking into account the loss of constant love and affection and also loss or deficiency in care and attention. Adequate compensation which is fair and equitable to make good the loss suffered should be estimated and awarded in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the house wife. The said loss of service need not only be due to death of the house wife. Adequate compensation which is fair and equitable to make good the loss suffered should be estimated and awarded in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the house wife. The said loss of service need not only be due to death of the house wife. The family members can feel the loss of service even in cases where the house wife sustains injuries resulting in partial or permanent disability. 20. However, the learned counsel for the respondent relying upon the two judgments of the Delhi High Court in AMARSINGH THUKRAL V. SANDEEP (2004) 112 DLT 478 ) and CHANDRA SINGH V. GURMEET SINGH (2003) 7 AD 222 (DEL) would contend that for assessing the contribution of house wife to the household work, resort should be made to wages of a skilled worker while calculating the amount of compensation. 21. In my view, the services of a house wife cannot be equated with the work of a skilled or unskilled or even to that of an officer or a Software Engineer working in any office. It is unfair and unjust to compute the compensation payable for the loss or deficiency in services of a house wife, who does not have an income of her own, by comparing her services with an employee who works for a fixed period. No individual would render such multifarious services as that of a housewife towards her husband and children. It is impossible to weigh in terms of money, the loss of adequate attention or no attention suffered by husband and children. 22. In the present case, the Doctor who has been examined as P.W.2 categorically deposed that the claimant was under his care on 6-7-1994 with multiple injuries including compound commuted fractures of the left upper limb. X rays were taken showing left humerus fracture lower 1/3rd of ulna. On 12-7-1994 operation was done by putting nail in humerus and square nails in left forearm. On 12-8-1994 once again debradement was done and ultimately she was discharged from the hospital on 24-8-1994 with instructions for further follow up. Ex.X-1 is the case sheet maintained in the hospital and basing on it P.W.2 gave evidence. Further, P.W.2 assessed the permanent disability at 40% as there is shortening of left humerus by ½ inch and also restrictions in movement of left elbow joint. 23. Ex.X-1 is the case sheet maintained in the hospital and basing on it P.W.2 gave evidence. Further, P.W.2 assessed the permanent disability at 40% as there is shortening of left humerus by ½ inch and also restrictions in movement of left elbow joint. 23. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by any arithmetical calculations. 24. In the case on hand, the tribunal held that the claimant was only a housewife and her version in evidence that she was earning Rs.3000/- to Rs.5000/- on a timber business is false. The tribunal further held that when once a person is not having any earnings and having no earning capacity, the question of taking the earnings of non-earning member at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per the Second Schedule to the Act does not arise at all. In the absence of any income, the tribunal did not assess the loss of earnings sustained by the claimant. The tribunal awarded only Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering for the fracture to her left hand; Rs. 5,764/- towards medical expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards permanent disability. 25. The finding of the tribunal with regard to the fact that there was no evidence with regard to the income of the deceased may be correct. But in the case on hand, a non-earning member of the family, more so, a housewife whose services to the family are not disputed, notional income of Rs.15,000/- mentioned in the Second Schedule incorporated pursuant to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 can be taken as a guiding factor for the purpose of fixing the income of the claimant. The said view was taken by the tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. The age of the injured at the time of accident was around 27 years. The evidence of P.W.2 clearly shows that the claimant was an inpatient in the hospital from 6-7-1994 to 24-8-94 i.e., nearly 1½th month. During that period, the claimant must have taken the help of an attender to attend on her daily needs. The age of the injured at the time of accident was around 27 years. The evidence of P.W.2 clearly shows that the claimant was an inpatient in the hospital from 6-7-1994 to 24-8-94 i.e., nearly 1½th month. During that period, the claimant must have taken the help of an attender to attend on her daily needs. In view of the said position, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.12,000/-towards transportation charges, attendant charges and extra nourishment apart from the amount of Rs.5,764/- awarded towards medical bills. 26. Taking the notional income of the injured at Rs.15,000/- per annum, which would be around Rs.1250/- per month, the loss of income/loss of service to the family during the period of hospitalization and also for couple of months after her discharge can be fixed at around Rs.4,000/-. As stated above, the services of the claimant to the family have to be compensated during the said period either by way of engaging a maid servant or otherwise. In that view of the matter, the amount of Rs.4,000/- awarded under the said count is just and fair. 27. It is normally said and also well accepted that under Indian socio economic conditions even two hands are not sufficient for a house maker to do the household work. The amount of time and energy spent by her in getting the household things done in a smooth and effective manner, without causing inconvenience or hardship to the husband or children cannot be equated with services, if any rendered by any skilled or unskilled labour engaged to do the same household work. The difficulty a house maker faces due to impairment of one hand cannot be estimated by any stretch of imagination. The answer to the query as to whether the claimant is doing the same work which she was doing prior to accident, is definitely ‘No’. The difficulty a house maker faces due to impairment of one hand cannot be estimated by any stretch of imagination. The answer to the query as to whether the claimant is doing the same work which she was doing prior to accident, is definitely ‘No’. Though resisted by the counsel for the Corporation, in the facts and circumstances of the case where functional disability of a house maker who involves herself in multifarious activities, cannot be assessed, I deem it appropriate to take the functional disability at 40% as assessed by the Doctor and compute the loss of future services to the family by taking the income of the claimant as Rs.15,000/- per annum, deduct 1/3rd towards living and personal expensed and assess the loss of future services to the family at Rs.10000 x 17 x 40/100= Rs.68,000/-. 28. Under non-pecuniary damages, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15000/- towards pain and suffering for fracture of her left hand, which in my view is reasonable. However, no amount has been awarded towards loss of amenities due to the injuries sustained by the claimant. The amount of suffering which the claimant had undergone can only be matter of imagination. She has to live the rest of her life with restricted movement of her left hand and left leg. The appellant who was around 27 years at the time of accident would live for not less than 60 years. During the said period she would not be able to enjoy the life as she used to prior to the accident. In that view of the matter, it will be just and reasonable to adjust the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the count permanent disability towards loss of amenities and loss of love and affection. 29. In view of the findings given above, the compensation awarded to the claimant is enhanced from Rs.50,764/- to Rs.1,16,564/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 65,800/- will carry an interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 30. With the above enhancement of compensation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs.