JUDGMENT 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited challenging the impugned award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Sivagangai in M.C.O.P. No. 27 of 2010 dated 30.9.2011, complaining the quantum of Compensation and also the Application of multiplier for calculating the Compensation. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the Claim Petition are that when the deceased by name Tmt. A. Ramu, being the Wife of the First Claimant-Mr. C. Azhagu and the mother of the Claimants 2 to 4 in the Claim Petition, was carrying water at about 6.00 a.m., on 28.3.2009, the offending Bus bearing Registration No. TN-59-AZ-2207 coming from the opposite direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Tmt. A. Ramu, resultantly, the said Tmt. Ramu, who sustained injuries on her head and other multiple abrasions all over the body, succumbed to the injuries in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Ponamaravathi on the same day. Under this background, since the deceased being the Wife of the First Claimant and mother of the Claimants 2 to 4, a Claim Petition was filed even though for a claim of Rs. 3,63,500/-, the Claimants restricted the claim to Rs. 3,00,000/-. A detailed Counter Affidavit was filed by the Insurance Company, the Appellant herein, taking a stand that the claim of compensation for the death of the deceased Tmt. A. Ramu, Wife of the First Claimant and mother of the Claimants 2 to 4, in a road accident was not maintainable in law and on facts, hence, they were not entitled to get any relief. Further, it was also pleaded that the Claimants were put to strict proof that the deceased died due to injuries she had sustained in the alleged accident said to have occurred at 6.00 a.m., on 28.3.2009. The Insurance Company also objected that the claim of Rs. 2,000/- towards Nutrition was not acceptable; that the claim of Rs. 50,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection, Mental Agony and Loss of Estate were excessive and that the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards Loss of Dependency was highly excessive. Finally, it was pleaded that 50% have to be deducted towards the Personal and Living Expenses of the deceased, as all the Claimants were not dependants. Pending disposal of the Claim Petition, the First Claimant also died. 2,00,000/- towards Loss of Dependency was highly excessive. Finally, it was pleaded that 50% have to be deducted towards the Personal and Living Expenses of the deceased, as all the Claimants were not dependants. Pending disposal of the Claim Petition, the First Claimant also died. Ultimately, upon hearing the respective submissions, the Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition and granted a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation in favour of the Claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realisation. Hence, the present Appeal by the Insurance Company. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Tribunal miserably failed to fix the monthly income of the deceased, similarly, failed to adopt the correct multiplier for calculating the amount of compensation. It was further pleaded that even the method of calculating the compensation in a case of fatal accident was not followed by the Tribunal. On this basis, he prayed for setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 4. Heard the respective learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 as well. 5. It must be mentioned at the outset that the deceased being a home maker, that is the Wife of the First Claimant and mother of the Claimants 2 to 4, she could never be substituted for the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘Loss of Love and Affection’. The reason being that admittedly the deceased Tmt. A. Ramu suffered head injuries and multiple abrasions all over the body due to the heavy impact caused by the offending passenger vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-59-AZ-2207, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, and even though she was immediately taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Ponamaravathi for treatment, she succumbed to the injuries on the same day. These facts have not been disputed by the Appellant-Insurance Company in the Appeal anywhere. In this context, the judgment of the Apex Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 (2) TN MAC 129 (SC), holding that the compensation awarded in respect of housewife not having regular source of income and her contribution as housewife to the family viz., Husband and Children cannot be quantified in terms of money, has been completely lost sight of by the Appellant. In fact, the Apex Court, while dealing with the importance of homemaker, has held as follows: “19. We may now deal with the question formulated in the opening paragraph of this judgment. In Kemp and Kemp on Quantum of Damages (Special Edition - 1986), the authors have identified various heads under which the Husband can claim compensation on the death of his Wife. These include loss of the Wife's contribution to the household from her earnings, the additional expenses incurred or likely to be incurred by having the household run by a house-keeper or servant, instead of the Wife, the expenses incurred in buying clothes for the Children instead of having them made by the Wife, and similarly having his own clothes mended or stitched elsewhere than by his Wife, and the loss of that element of security provided to the Husband where his employment was insecure or his health was bad and where the Wife could go out and work for a living. 20. In England the Courts used to award damages solely on the basis of pecuniary loss to family due to the demise of the Wife. A departure from this rule came to be made in Berry v. Humm and Co., 1915 (1) K.B. 627, where the Plaintiff claimed damages for the death of his Wife caused due to the negligence of the Defendant's servants. After taking cognizance of some precedents, the learned Judge observed: “I can see no reason in principle why such pecuniary loss should be limited to the value of money lost, or the money value of things lost, as contributions of food or clothing, and why I should be bound to exclude the monetary loss incurred by replacing services rendered gratuitously by a relative, if there was a reasonable prospect of their being rendered freely in the future but for the death.” 21. In Regan v. Williamson, 1976 (1) WLR 305, the Court considered the issue relating to quantum of compensation payable to the dependants of the woman, who was killed in a road accident. The facts of that case were that on the date of accident, the Plaintiff was aged 43 years and his Children were aged 14 years, 11 years, 8 years and 3 years respectively. The deceased Wife/mother was aged 37 years. The facts of that case were that on the date of accident, the Plaintiff was aged 43 years and his Children were aged 14 years, 11 years, 8 years and 3 years respectively. The deceased Wife/mother was aged 37 years. The cost of a housekeeper to carry out services previously rendered by his Wife was 22.5 pounds per week, the saving to him in not having to clothe and feed his Wife was 10 pound per week, leaving a net loss of 12.50 pounds per week or 600 pounds a year. However, the Court took into account the value of other services previously rendered by the Wife for which no substitute was available and accordingly increased the dependency to 20 pounds a week. The Court then applied a multiplier of 11 in reaching a total fatal accidents award of 12,298 pounds….” 6. After discussing the above, by reminding the ground reality, the Apex Court, by borrowing a support from the above English judgment, has consistently further made it clear that in cases involving the death of a Wife and mother with strict disregard to those features of the life of a woman beyond her so-called services, that is to say, to keep house, to cook the food, to buy the clothes, to wash them and so forth, we cannot simply fix a frivolous amount of compensation, merely for the reason that the compensation has been claimed for the death of a housewife in a road accident. A genuine attempt should be made to calculate the actual number of hours it would take a woman to perform such services and to compensate dependants upon that basis at so much an hour and so relegate the Wife or mother, for the simple reason that a Wife, who is also a mother, does not work to set hours and, still less, to rule. She is in constant attendance save for those hours when she is, if that is the fact, at work. During some of those hours she may well give the Children instruction on essential matters to do with their upbringing and, possibly, with such things as their homework. This sort of attention seems to be as much of a service, and probably more value to them than the other kinds of service conventionally so regarded. During some of those hours she may well give the Children instruction on essential matters to do with their upbringing and, possibly, with such things as their homework. This sort of attention seems to be as much of a service, and probably more value to them than the other kinds of service conventionally so regarded. Again it may be mentioned that the pecuniary value of a Wife's services can be assessed and granted under the following heads, viz., (a) loss to the family of the Wife's housekeeping services; (b) loss suffered by the Children of the personal attention of their mother, apart from housekeeping services rendered by her; and (c) loss of the Wife's personal care and attention, which the Husband had suffered, in addition to the loss of her housekeeping services. In this context, it is equally pertinent to look at Paragraphs 23 & 24 of the judgment in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 (2) TN MAC 129 (SC), where the Apex Court laid down the law as follows: “23. In India, the Courts have recognised that the contribution made by the Wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by Wife with true love and affection to the Children and her Husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A Wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of Husband and Children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small Children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc., but she can never be a substitute for a Wife/mother who renders selfless service to her Husband and Children. 24. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the Wife/mother to the family i.e. Husband and Children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of housewife/mother. 24. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the Wife/mother to the family i.e. Husband and Children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of housewife/mother. In that context, the term ‘services’ is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her Children as a mother and to her Husband as a Wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the Loss of Gratuitous Services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier.” 7. Dealing with the importance of ‘homemaker’ in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 (2) TN MAC 129 (SC), the Apex Court, while recognising such services rendered in the home by a woman for other members of the household, held plainly that it is possible to put monetary value to these services as for instance, the monetary value of cooking for family members could be assessed in terms of what it would cost to hire a cook or to purchase ready cooked food or by assessing how much money could be earned if the food cooked for the family were to be sold in the locality. Therefore, the contributions made by the ‘homemaker’ in the present case has been completely lost sight of by the Appellant by filing an Appeal against the award of compensation of a meagre amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Indeed, while again dealing with the award of just compensation in Ibrahim v. Raju, 2011 (6) CTC 904 (SC) : 2011 (2) TN MAC 641 (SC) : 2011 ACJ 2845, by taking note of the award of Rs. 1,49,440/- by the Tribunal, which was increased to Rs. 1,89,440/- by the High Court, the Apex Court, finding that the said amount is a pittance for the injured homemaker, further allowed the Appeal by awarding a total compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest at the rate of six percent per annum by deprecating the poor lawyer's ability to ask sufficient and just compensation. 1,89,440/- by the High Court, the Apex Court, finding that the said amount is a pittance for the injured homemaker, further allowed the Appeal by awarding a total compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest at the rate of six percent per annum by deprecating the poor lawyer's ability to ask sufficient and just compensation. Above all, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai v. Minor Deepika, rep. by her guardian and next friend, Ranganathan, 2009 (1) TN MAC 671 (DB), propounding as to how the housewife's unpaid labour could be evaluated by different methods, namely, value of housewife = Husband's income - Wife's income + value of Husband's household services, also has been completely lost sight of by the Appellant while challenging a mere pittance of Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8. In view of the above guidelines, without going into the other grounds, the Appeal filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of Petition till the date of realisation for the Loss of Homemaker is absolutely not maintainable. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2012 is also dismissed. No costs.