Judgment Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the award of lesser compensation in a Motor Accident Claim Petition, the present Appeal is preferred by the original claimants. 3. Deceased Smt. Noorjahanbegum Sayyad died in a motor accident, involving a bus of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and the goods truck. The deceased was traveling by the bus. The petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-was therefore filed by the husband and the offsprings of the couple. 4. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence before it, held that the truck driver was rash and negligent. In the circumstances, the driver, owner and the insurer of the bus i.e. the present respondent nos.4 and 5 were directed to pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal however, came to the conclusion that there was no pecuniary loss and, therefore, towards the non-pecuniary loss, compensation of Rs.10,000/-was granted for loss of consortium and love and affection and Rs.5000/-towards the funeral expenses. 5. Mr. R.R. Deshmukh, learned counsel h/f. Mr. S.R. Choukidar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the reasoning of the learned Member that no compensation towards the pecuniary loss can be granted is against the well settled principle of law. The respective counsel, made submissions on the line of their submissions before the learned trial Court. 6. On the basis of this material, following point arise for my determination: I) Whether the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal, is just? My finding to the above point is in the negative. The Appeal is therefore partly allowed, with costs for the reasons to follow. REASONS: 7. Merely because the lady is a housewife, there cannot be a direct conclusion that there was no loss to the family. The learned counsel relied in "Arun Kumar Agrawal and anr. Vs. National Insurance Company and ors. 2010 AIR (SC) 3426", wherein in paragraph no.3, the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "3. In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, "the said Act"), Section 163A provides for special provision for payment of compensation on structured formula basis. The said Section has been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment by brother Singhvi, J. Therefore, I refrain from quoting the same. The Second Schedule which is referred to in the said Section has several clauses. Clause 6 of the said Schedule provides for notional income of those who had no income prior to accident. The said Section has been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment by brother Singhvi, J. Therefore, I refrain from quoting the same. The Second Schedule which is referred to in the said Section has several clauses. Clause 6 of the said Schedule provides for notional income of those who had no income prior to accident. Clause 6 has been divided into two classes of persons, (a) nonearning persons, and (b) spouse. Insofar as the spouse is concerned, the income of the injured in fatal and non-fatal accident has been categorized as 1/3rd of the income of the earning and surviving spouse. It is, therefore, assumed if the spouse who does not earn, which is normally the woman in the house and the homemaker, such a person, cannot have an income more than 1/3rd of the income of the person who is earning. This categorization has been made without properly appreciating the value of the services rendered by the homemaker. To value the income of the home-maker as one-third of the income of the earning spouse is not based on any apparently rational basis." In that view of the matter, the notional income at Rs.15,000/-per annum, will have to be assumed, as is submitted by the learned counsel. Upon giving deduction towards the notional personal expenses, the loss would come to Rs.10,000/-per annum. 8. The appellants have claimed that the deceased was 35 years old at the time of her untimely death. The certified copy of the post-mortem examination report filed by the appellants with the learned Tribunal, Exhibit 89, shows that the Medical Officer has estimated the age of the deceased as 35 years. In that view of the matter, applying the ratio in the case of "Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr." (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121, multiplier of 16 would be applicable. The compensation on pecuniary heads, would thus come to Rs.10,000 X 16 = Rs.1,60,000/-. By addition of the amount of Rs.15,000/-towards the non-pecuniary head, as is granted by the learned Member, the total compensation would come to Rs.1,75,000/-, including the amount of Rs.15,000/-already granted by the learned Member. 9. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the insurer submits that in view of the fact that the claim was only for Rs.1,00,000/-and much time has lapsed since the date of filing of the petition, there is no need to award any interest. 9. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the insurer submits that in view of the fact that the claim was only for Rs.1,00,000/-and much time has lapsed since the date of filing of the petition, there is no need to award any interest. 10. In my view, grant of additional amount of Rs.25,000/-towards the interest, instead of any specified rate of interest, would be just, as since the year 1987, the parties are litigating in the Court and it would be onerous for the Insurance Company to pay the interest. 11. In that view of the matter, the Appeal is partly allowed with costs. Respondent nos.3 to 5 shall pay a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, including the amount of Rs.15,000/-, already granted by the learned Member, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of this order. Upon failure to deposit the said amount, with the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks in default, the respondent nos.3 to 5 would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default, till the realization of the amount. The appellants shall pay deficit Court fees within a period of eight weeks. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.