JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud,J. All these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment as they arise out of the same accident. Before adverting to the individual grounds of challenge in each one of the appeal, the facts may be noticed. 2. On 21.1.2006, Mahindra Max Jeep No.HP-01K was being driven by its owner Shri Rakesh Goyal. It was leaded that he was driving at a fast speed, lost control of the vehicle near Bhangi Dwar on Chowai- Dalash road and as a result it fell into a gorge about 800 feet as a result Smt.Daya Banti alongwith other occupants sustained fatal injuries. In each case, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation holding that the accident had occurred owing to the rash and negligent acts of the driver. The award has been challenged by the Insurance Company only in three cases and the claimants have filed appeals claiming enhancement of the compensation in each case. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company challenges the compensation to the claimants in this appeal which has been awarded for the death of Smt.Daya Banti who was a house wife and it was pleaded that she was also assisting the family in agricultural work. 4. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,55,000/-in all taking the dependency to be Rs.3000/-per month and adopting a multiplier of 15. She was aged about 41 years on the date of the accident as determined by the learned Tribunal. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company submits that amount was excessive. On the second issue settled by the learned Tribunal, regarding the quantum, it is submitted that the husband of the deceased was serving in the Punjab National Bank and was getting Rs.21,000/ 25,000 per month as salary and was the owner of 17-18 bighas of land which was a fertile apple orchard from which he used to earn Rs.3-4 lacs annually. In these circumstances, it cannot be urged that he was dependant upon the deceased. As an adjunct to this argument, it is submitted that 1/3rd should and ought to have been deducted from the datum figure as the personal expenses of the deceased house wife. It is also stated that the other claimants, namely, son and daughters of the deceased cannot be said to be dependant upon a house wife, their mother, and cannot be granted any compensation. 6. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation. It is also stated that the other claimants, namely, son and daughters of the deceased cannot be said to be dependant upon a house wife, their mother, and cannot be granted any compensation. 6. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation. It is claimed that just compensation has not been awarded as the averments in the appeal are that the deceased was helping in agricultural pursuits for producing bountiful apple crop, no amount has been awarded for funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. The claimants plead that a sum of Rs.15 lacs should and ought to be awarded as just compensation. 7. In Lata Wadhwa and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2001)8 SCC 197 , the dependency in the case of death of a house wife has been calculated at Rs.3000/-per month. This case was subsequently reaffirmed in Arum Kumar Agrawal and Anothers vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2010)9 SCC 218 , holding:- “26. 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. 27. 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 dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of housewife/mother. 27. 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 dependents, 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. 28. In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (2001)8 SCC 197 , this Court considered the various issues raised in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners including the one relating to payment of compensation to the victims of fire accident which occurred on 3.3.1989 resulting in the death of 60 persons and injuries to 113. By an interim order dated 15.12.1993, this Court requested former Chief Justice of India, Shri Justice Y.V. Chandrachud to look into various issues including the amount of compensation payable to the victims. Although, the petitioners filed objection to the report submitted by Shri Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, the Court overruled the same and accepted the report. On the issue of payment of compensation to the housewife, the Court observed SCC pp.209-10, para 10) "10. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000 per annum in cases of some and Rs.10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000 per annum in cases of some and Rs.10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given data for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the data for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3000 per month and Rs.36,000 per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore, should be recalculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs.36,000 and thereafter, applying the multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs.50,000 instead of Rs.25,000 given under the Report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs.10,000 per annum and the multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the values of services rendered at Rs.10,000 per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs.20,000 per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be redetermined, taking the value of services rendered at Rs.20,000 per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter, adding Rs.50,000 towards the conventional figure." (emphasis supplied) 29. The judgment of Lata Wadhwa's case was referred to with approval in M.S. Grewal and another v. Deep Chand Sood and others (2001) 8 SCC 151 for confirming the award of compensation of Rs.5 lacs in a case involving death of school children by drowning due to negligence of teachers of the school. The judgment of Lata Wadhwa's case was referred to with approval in M.S. Grewal and another v. Deep Chand Sood and others (2001) 8 SCC 151 for confirming the award of compensation of Rs.5 lacs in a case involving death of school children by drowning due to negligence of teachers of the school. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer and another (2003) 8 SCC 731 , a two-Judge Bench while deciding the issue of award of compensation under Sections 110-A and 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to the judgments in Lata Wadhwa's case and M.S. Grewal's case.” (pp.237-239) The Court thereafter considers the other precedent and then holds:- “36. Though, Section 163A does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the judgments of this Court in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994)2 SCC 176 , U.P. S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra, (1996)4SCC 362, Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009)6 SCC 121 and also take guidance from the judgment in Lata Wadhwa's case. The approach adopted by different Benches of Delhi High Court to compute the compensation by relying upon the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker does not commend our approval because it is most unrealistic to compare the gratuitous services of the housewife/mother with work of a skilled worker.” (p.241) The Court thereafter allowed the appeal awarding compensation of Rs.six lacs and costs of Rs.50,000/-. Hon’ble A.K. Ganguly J, concurring with the judgment, holds:- “50. Women are generally engaged in home making, bringing up children and also in production of goods and services which are not sold in the market but are consumed at the household level. Thus, the work of women mostly goes unrecognized and they are never valued. Therefore, in the categorization by the Census what is ignored is the well known fact that women make significant contribution at various levels including agricultural production by sowing, harvesting, transplanting and also tending cattles and by cooking and delivering the food to those persons who are on the field during the agriculture season. 52. Therefore, in the categorization by the Census what is ignored is the well known fact that women make significant contribution at various levels including agricultural production by sowing, harvesting, transplanting and also tending cattles and by cooking and delivering the food to those persons who are on the field during the agriculture season. 52. The same gender bias has been reflected in the judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court has accepted the tribunal's reasoning of assessing the income of the victim at Rs.1,250/-per month. Even if we go by the formula under clause 6 of the Second Schedule, income of the victim comes to Rs.5,000/-per month.” (p.243) 8. Subsequently in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kusuma and Another, (2011)13 SCC 306, the Supreme Court again reaffirmed the principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa’s case holding:- “12. It is quite true, as observed in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Satender,(2006)13 SCC 60, that the question of assessment of compensation in a case where the deceased is an infant involves a good deal of guess work but in our view it cannot be a wild guesswork. As aforesaid, some material has to be adduced by the claimants to prove that they entertained a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage from the deceased. There are quite a few precedents providing guidelines for determination of compensation in such cases but because of the nature of the order we propose to pass on facts in hand, we deem it unnecessary to burden the judgment by making a reference to all these cases, except to note that in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001)8 SCC 197 as also in M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001)8 SCC 151 wherein a large number of young school-going children had lost their lives, respectively in fire and by drowning, multiplier method was adopted and applied for assigning value of future dependency to determine the quantum of compensation. (p.310) 9. It is these principles which would govern the grant of compensation in the present case. (p.310) 9. It is these principles which would govern the grant of compensation in the present case. On the question of multiplier, since the deceased was aged 41 years in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, 2012 ACJ 2002, the Supreme Court holds:- “15(15)(ii) Re: Question-Selection of multiplier: (21) We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” (p.2007) 10. The multiplier to be adopted, on the basis of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), would in this case be 13. The submission made on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company that no amount can be awarded to the claimants for the loss of their mother cannot be accepted since the argument is that the husband is earning, death of his wife would not constitute any loss. Surely this logic cannot be adopted. The argument does not carry any legal foundation as it urges that any member of the family can be subject matter of a tort involving fatal injuries and in which compensation is to be paid. FAO No.482 of 2008 is accordingly dismissed. 11. Adverting to appeal (FAO No.471 of 2008) filed by the claimants, on the basis of law discussed supra, the compensation calculated would be Rs.3000x 12x13 = 4,68,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Supreme Court in Arum Kumar Agrawal’s case holds that income should and ought to be Rs.5000/- per month and in this eventuality the compensation requires to be increased. In case a datum figure of Rs.5000/-is adopted, the total compensation would work out to Rs.7,80,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Supreme Court in Arum Kumar Agrawal’s case holds that income should and ought to be Rs.5000/- per month and in this eventuality the compensation requires to be increased. In case a datum figure of Rs.5000/-is adopted, the total compensation would work out to Rs.7,80,000/-. However, taking into consideration the totality of the facts of the case, I deem it proper not to increase the award but to award an additional sum of Rs.50,000/-as held in Lata Wadhwa and Arum Kumar Agrawal’s case. I direct that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.six lacs in all. It will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. Award is accordingly modified. The compensation will be awarded in the ratio as adopted by the learned Tribunal. 12. In this case, the claimant is the minor daughter of Smt.Tara Devi who was aged about 38 years on the date when she died in the accident. A sum of Rs.4,83,000/-has been awarded by the learned Tribunal for the loss of her mother. The learned Tribunal adopts Rs.3000/-per month as loss and a multiplier of 13. Conventional charges of Rs.15,000/-was also awarded to her. Adverting to the precedent supra, the multiplier to be applied in her case would be 15, according to Sarla Verma’s case, in which eventuality, the compensation would work out to Rs.5,40,000/-. To this, another sum of Rs.50,000/-would be added as held in Lata Wadhwa and Arum Kumar Agrawal’s cases supra and in addition another sum of Rs.10,000/-towards funeral expenses which would be the accepted norm, thus, in all a sum of Rs.six lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum deserves to be awarded to the claimant. The submissions made on behalf of the Insurance Company that a personal deduction of 1/3rd requires to be made and an amount of Rs.15,000/-have to be deducted because no conventional charges can be awarded, cannot be accepted. I have not adjudicated the fact as to whether the income of a house wife requires to be increased to Rs.5000/-per month. Appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed and that of the claimant is allowed. Award is modified accordingly. It will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Kumari Minakshi and Others. Appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed and that of the claimant is allowed. Award is modified accordingly. It will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Kumari Minakshi and Others. the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. (V) FAO No.469 of 2008, titled: Kumari Minakshi vs. Smt.Samriti Goyal and Others. 13. In this appeal Minakshi challenges the award made in her favour for the death of her brother. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,54,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The deceased, on the date of his death, was about 16 years of age. It was claimed that he was a student, father of the claimant had already died and the deceased was rendering services/work in the house. He was a brilliant student and was getting scholarship. The learned Tribunal holds that his contribution to the family would be Rs.1000/-per month which would have been available to his minor sister. Applying a multiplier of 12 the compensation was worked out at Rs.1,44,000/-to which Rs.10,000/-were added. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the compensation is not just. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satender & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 324, the Supreme Court holds:- “12. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation. 13. Applying the principles indicated in Jasbir Kaur's case (supra) to the facts of the present case we think award of a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The same shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of petition till payment is made. Payment shall be made within a period of three months from today. The same shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of petition till payment is made. Payment shall be made within a period of three months from today. Amounts, if any, already paid shall be adjusted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (p.326) 14. In Kaushlya Devi Vs. Karan Arora & Others, AIR 2007 SC 1912 , the Supreme Court holds:- “11. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation. 12. These aspects were highlighted in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender and Ors. (AIR 2007 SC 324).” (p.1914) 15. Subsequently, in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kusuma and Another, (2011)13 SCC 306 the Court was considering the unborn child holding:- “9. Thus, the word “just” connotes something which is equitable, fair and reasonable, conforming to rectitude and justice and not arbitrary. It may be true that Section 168 of the Act confers a wide discretion on the Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation but this discretion is also coupled with a duty to see that this exercise is carried out rationally and judiciously by accepted legal standards and not whimsically and arbitrarily, a concept unknown to public law. The amount of compensation awarded is not expected to be a windfall or bonanza for the victim or his dependent, as the case may be, but at the same time it should not be niggardly or a pittance. Thus, determination of “just” amount of compensation is beset with difficulties, more so when the deceased happens to be an infant/ child because the future of a child is full of glorious uncertainties. In the case of death of an infant many imponderables, like life expectancy of the deceased, his prospects to earn, save, spend and distribute have to be taken into account. In the case of death of an infant many imponderables, like life expectancy of the deceased, his prospects to earn, save, spend and distribute have to be taken into account. It is quite possible that there may be no actual pecuniary benefit which may be derived by his parents during the life time of the child. But at the same time that cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the parents, albeit they establish that they had reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. The question whether there exists a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit is always a mixed question of fact and law but a mere speculative possibility of benefit is not sufficient. 10. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satender, (2006)13 SCC 60 relied upon by the High Court, while dealing with a claim for compensation under the Act in relation to the death of a nine year old child in a truck accident, this Court had observed as follows: (SCC p.63, para 9) “9. There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents.” 11. It was further observed that: (Satender1 case, SCC p.64, para 12) “12.In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation.” 12. It is quite true, as observed in Satender1, that the question of assessment of compensation in a case where the deceased is an infant involves a good deal of guesswork but in our view it cannot be a wild guesswork. As aforesaid, some material has to be adduced by the claimants to prove that they entertained a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage from the deceased. There are quite a few precedents providing guidelines for determination of compensation in such cases but because of nature of the order we propose to pass on facts in hand, we deem it unnecessary to burden the judgment by making a reference to all these cases, except to note that in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001)8 SCC 197 as also in M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood (2001)8 SCC 151 , wherein a large number of young school going children had lost their lives, respectively in fire and by drowning, multiplier method was adopted and applied for assigning value of future dependency to determine the quantum of compensation. 13. Having examined the instant case on the touchstone of the aforestated broad principles, we are of the opinion that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court applied any principle for determination of the amount of compensation on account of the birth of a still born child. It is clear from a bare reading of the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court that no reasons have been indicated by the Tribunal while awarding a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/-towards the loss of unborn child and Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering to the mother and by the High Court enhancing the said amounts to a consolidated amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. Besides, in the impugned judgment, we do not find any discussion on the question of non-pecuniary compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant- mother on account of pain and suffering as a result of death of the child. 14. Besides, in the impugned judgment, we do not find any discussion on the question of non-pecuniary compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant- mother on account of pain and suffering as a result of death of the child. 14. In the normal course, we would have remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. However, bearing in mind the quantum of compensation awarded by the courts below and the fact that the accident took place in the year 1995, we are of the opinion that at this juncture it would be too harsh to direct the claimants to undergo the entire gamut of a fresh exercise under Section 168 of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we refrain from interfering with the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal accordingly, with no order as to costs.” (pp.309-311) 16. What I find from the assessment made by the learned Tribunal is that it is on the conservative side and in this eventuality the sum awarded requires to be increased. More so considering the fact that she has been rendered destitute, her mother and father have died, her father pre-deceased her mother. Her brother and mother died in the accident. Therefore, it would be in the fitness of things that a sum of Rs.two lacs in all is awarded to the appellant. It will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. Award is modified accordingly. ( 17. Both these appeals challenge the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants for the death of their father Kehar Singh who was aged 46 years at the time of death. The claimants pleaded that he was an agriculturist and horticulturist cultivating land and selling vegetables etc. for their living who was earning about Rs.18000/-to Rs.20000/-per month. He was the sole bread earner of the family. The trial Court, on the evidence on record, holds that the deceased had inherited 1/3rd of 15 bighas of land holdings of his father Shri Ses Ram. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-per month out of which, 1/3rd was deducted for personal expenses. Ultimately the annual dependency was calculated at Rs.24,000/-, multiplier of 12 was adopted and a sum of Rs.2,88,000/-has been worked out as just compensation. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-per month out of which, 1/3rd was deducted for personal expenses. Ultimately the annual dependency was calculated at Rs.24,000/-, multiplier of 12 was adopted and a sum of Rs.2,88,000/-has been worked out as just compensation. In addition, Rs.15,000/-as .conventional charges were added and a sum of Rs.3,03,000/-was granted alongwith interest at the rate of 7½% per annum. 18. The Insurance Company in its appeal has challenged the award urging that the income of the deceased was not more than Rs.20,000/-which has been established on the record from the cross-examination of PW-1 Sunil Kumar and the multiplier used was excessive. Considering the age of the claimants, it could not be said that they are dependant upon him. This submission requires to be rejected. It cannot be said that the death of the father, who was engaged in agricultural pursuits in a family residing and pressing together, would not cause any loss to the dependency. 19. Adverting to the evidence on record, I do not find that it has been admitted by PW-1 that income was not more than Rs.20,000/-is not found in the record. In fact this witness denies the suggestion that the income of the father and mother of the claimants was not more than Rs.2,000 to 2,500/-. In these circumstances, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. 20. Adverting to the appeal (FAO No.472 of 2008) filed by the claimants, according to Sarla Verma’s case supra, considering the age of the deceased a multiplier of 13 has to be applied. I also find that the learned Tribunal has been frugal in granting compensation, more especially, when it is proved on record that the deceased was infact an agriculturist and no evidence has been brought on the record to the contrary. .21. In these circumstances, taking into consideration the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and Arum Kumar Agrawal’s cases supra, the income requires to be increased, in which eventuality it would be reasonable to assume that he would be earning Rs.4,500/-per month, if 1/3rd is deducted from his personal expenses it will leave a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards the contribution of the family. The annual dependency would be worked out to Rs.36,000/-. Applying multiplier of 13 the compensation awardable would be Rs.4,68,000/-. Award is accordingly modified. The annual dependency would be worked out to Rs.36,000/-. Applying multiplier of 13 the compensation awardable would be Rs.4,68,000/-. Award is accordingly modified. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. The amount will be disbursed in the same ratio as has been granted by the learned Tribunal. 22. The claimants are again Sanjay Kumar and Others. In this petition, they claim compensation for the death of their mother Smt.Roop Dassi, who at the relevant time was aged 43 years. The learned Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 15. The loss to the claimants has been quantified at Rs.18,000/-per annum. She was a house wife and in this eventuality, I find that the Tribunal has been remiss in granting this .amount as in Lata Wadhwa’s case supra the Supreme Court holds that the amount should and ought to be Rs.3000/- per month which does not call for any deduction towards personal expenses as it is the value considered for the contribution of services to the family. In this eventuality the loss suffered by the appellants would be Rs.36,000/-per annum and when multiplier of 14 is adopted, Rs.4,90,000/-is awarded. I also find that as per Lata Wadhwa’s and Arum Kumar Agrawal’s cases supra, a sum of Rs.50,000/-is to be added. Thus, in all the compensation works out to Rs.5,40,000/-which would carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. The award is accordingly modified. 23. I must note the contention of the parties, the claimants herein, who submit that they lost both their mother and father and in this eventuality, the claim should and ought to be higher. In particular learned counsel places reliance on the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Arum Kumar Agrawal’s case supra, where Hon’ble A.K. Ganguly J. holds that income should and ought to have been assessed at Rs.5000/-per month. I am not pronouncing on this aspect of the case. It is unfortunate that both the parents of the claimants have died in the accident and they are now left to live alone.