JUDGMENT 1. - This civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the 1988 Act') has been filed by the appellants claimants (hereinafter 'the claimants') dissatisfied with the award dated 8.12.2004 passed by the judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar (Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Beawar District Ajmer (Hereinafter 'the Tribunal') on a Claim Petition No. 27/2004 (240/1997) under Section 166 of the 1988 At laid by the claimants. 2. The claimants filed a claim petition on 28.5.1997 before the learned Tribunal for the loss suffered by them owing to death of deceased one Foondi on 6.5.1997 while she was travelling in the offending truck bearing No. RSN-8166 driven by respondent No. 1 non claimant Ugam Singh (hereinafter ' Non claimant-I'), owned by respondent No. 2 non claimant Babu Lal (hereinafter 'Non claimants II'), and insured with respondent No. 3 non claimant the United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter 'the Insurance Company'). The offending vehicle had over-turned allegedly owing to rash and negligent driving of Non claimant-i. The deceased Foondi had sustained injuries in the accident and died therefrom. The offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance company. 3. On notice of the claim petition, reply was filed by the Insurance Company admitting the accident, but claiming avoidance of its liability to pay the compensation inter alia on the ground that the risk of the passengers in the offending vehicle, which was a goods vehicle, was not covered under the insurance policy issued by it. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal framed three issues and recorded the evidence as adduced before it. On behalf of claimants Mitu (PW- 1), Badami (PW-2) Chhagan (PW-3) and Suresh (PW-4) were examined and various,documents also exhibited and proved. On behalf of non-claimants I and II Arjun Singh (NAW-1) was examined and on behalf of Insurance Company Ms. Chandra Kala (NAW-2) was examined to prove the policy of insurance and the cover note and conditions thereof in support of the defence of avoidance. 5. The learned Tribunal vide award dated 8.12.2004 found negligence and computed the compensation payable to the claimants for the death of Foondi on 6.5.1997 in a motor accident in which the insured vehicle was involved at Rs. 1,87,000/- in the aggregate on account of pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. 5. The learned Tribunal vide award dated 8.12.2004 found negligence and computed the compensation payable to the claimants for the death of Foondi on 6.5.1997 in a motor accident in which the insured vehicle was involved at Rs. 1,87,000/- in the aggregate on account of pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. The Tribunal even though upholding the defence of the insurance company and finding breach of conditions of insurance policy in the use of the goods vehicle carrying passengers directed to pay the award amount to the claimants with 6% interest on amount due from the date of filing the claim to the date of payments. The insurance Company was however allowed to recover the amount of compensation from Babu Lal, the owner and driver (Non claimants-I and II) of the offending vehicle truck RSN-8166 in view of the Tribunal'a finding of breach of conditions of insurance policy. 6. Mr. J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the award dated 8.12.2004 in allowing compensation of Rs. 1,87,000/- as detailed above on account of death of Foondi is absolutely inadequate. He submits that albeit the deceased Foondi was indeed a house wife, neither educated nor skilled, yet she was discharging the essential function of the running of house-hold constituted inter alia aside of her husband and four minor children. It has been submitted that the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of her death in the motor accident and would have contributed for a long time towards the bringing up of her children and her husband. It has been submitted that in this view of the matter, the determination of loss of dependency on assumed income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum with deduction of ⅓ of the said amount on account of the personal expenses of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per annum was wholly inadequate Counsel for the claimants submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lata Wadhawa v. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) TAC 138 (SC) , has held that services of house wife in respect of whom compensation for death in a motor accident is sought should be evaluated to Rs. 3,000/- thousand per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Counsel submits that in this view of the matter monthly loss of dependency for the claimants owing to death of Foondi was ex facie inadequate. Counsel has further submitted that grant of Rs. 3,000/- thousand per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Counsel submits that in this view of the matter monthly loss of dependency for the claimants owing to death of Foondi was ex facie inadequate. Counsel has further submitted that grant of Rs. 7,000/- only on account of non pecuniary loss to husband and four minor children of Foondi is shockingly inadequate. It submitted that minor children of deceased Foondi who were amongst claimants were adversely affected beyond imagination owing to the untimely death of their mother and were deprived of her love and affection and also her guidance in the crucial years of their growing up. Counsel submits that similarly Mithu, the husband of the deceased Foondi aside of being deprived of love and affection of his wife in his young age was also denied pleasures of marital life and yet none of the aforesaid considerations have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal in determining the meagre non-pecuniary damages awarded to the claimants. It is prayed that therefore the monthly dependency of the claimants vis-a-vis deceased Foondi should be determined on the bases of notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month using the applicable multiplier of 18 in view of the deceased being 30 years of age at the time of her death. Enhancement of compensation for non-pecuniary damage has also been sought. 7. Mr. Tripurari Sharma, learned counsel for the Insurance company would however submit that in absence of any proof of income the Tribunal ordinarily ought to have dismissed the claim petition in view of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance company v. Meena Variyal, (2007) 5 SCC 428 , has held that the general principles for adjudication also apply to claims under the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. He submits that it is admitted that the consistent practice of the Hon'ble Supreme court as well as this court is that in claim petition under section 166 of the 1988 Act notional income of the deceased, where there is no actual proof of real income, is taken. counsel submits that the concept of notional income has been introduced by the courts as a judicial fiction with desire to effectively implement the socio economic legislation as the provision of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are (sic). counsel submits that the concept of notional income has been introduced by the courts as a judicial fiction with desire to effectively implement the socio economic legislation as the provision of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are (sic). However counsel argues that the concept of notional income should not be stretched beyond a point where award of compensation ceases to be "just" and translates into a windfall for the claimants and Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Ponnumany v. V.A. Mohanan, 2008 Act 1338 , has in the absence of proof of real income assessed notional income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum with deduction of ⅓ on account of personal expenses. It has been submitted that the learned tribunal in the instant case has exactly done that Counsel sunmits that similarly this Cour tin case of National Insurance Co. v. Smt. Satya Devi, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1581/1999, decided on 8.2.2012 , has also in the absence of proof of income taken the nominal income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum, and thereafter applying ⅓ deduction on account of personal expenses, determined the dependency of claimants at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. It is submitted that in this view of the matter nothing erroneous or arbitrary can be attributed to the award dated 8.12.2004 passed by the learned Tribunal on account of determining the compensation payable taking notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum and applying a deduction of ⅓ amount thereon on account of personal expenses and upkeep of the deceased. Further submission of the counsel for the non-claimant Insurance Company is the the accident in the instant case pertains to the year 1997, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramprasad Balmiki v. Anil Kumar Jain, (2008) 9 SCC 492 , has held that while determining the compensation for injury/death in a motor accident, relevant time for reckoning the amount payable to the claimants would the time of the accident. He submits that in this view of the matter the mere fact that appeal comes up before this in the year 2013, should not be relevant for adjudication of the amount of award to claimants. He submits that in this view of the matter the mere fact that appeal comes up before this in the year 2013, should not be relevant for adjudication of the amount of award to claimants. On the issue of determination of non pecuniary compensation by the Tribunal, counsel for the insurance company submits that the same is in accordance with the standard prescribed in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and hence should be sustained by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants claimants, as also the non claimant Insurance Company and perused the impugned award dated 8.12.2004. 9. Various methods for determining compensation for loss of life in a motor accident have been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judments. The sloe objective in such case is of determining just compensation. It is trite that computation of "just compensation" relates to facts of each case and entails fair amount of hypothesis and guess work. There can be no exactitude or universality in the manner of determining just compensation. The Tribunals while determining "Just compensation" are to focus on an acceptable range with reference to facts and circumstances of each case more particularly the proved/nominal income of the deceased, his age, family status and number of dependents. 10. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the deceased Foondi was a house wife, a residents of Pali in western Rajasthan. She had no extraordinary skill nor was educated or employed. She did however have a contribution as a wife and a mother. In my considered opinion in the absence of any proved income of the deceased the Tribunal did not appear to have committed any illegality in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and thereafter deducting ⅓ amount for her personal expenses. This was a hypothetical exercise not admitting of any wrangling on the inadequacy of the estimate. The age of the deceased Foondi being 30 years, multiplier of 18 has been rightly applied for determining the loss of dependency for the claimants. To my mind there is no occasion to interfere with the compensation thus arrived at on account of loss of dependency so determined by the learned Tribunal. More so, in the context of the fact that Rs. To my mind there is no occasion to interfere with the compensation thus arrived at on account of loss of dependency so determined by the learned Tribunal. More so, in the context of the fact that Rs. 1,80,000/- has been awarded for loss of dependency relating to an accident of 6.5.1997 to a family of meager means. THe income of Foondi is not on record. to my mind the compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- for loss of dependency in the year 1997 appears to be reasonable and just in the facts of the case. Added to the loss of dependency so determined the tribunal has also granted the interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereon. The Court in appeal under section 173 of the 1988 Act can interfere with the award only if the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is either inadequate or excessive, but not when the compensation is within a reasonable range. In my considered opinion there is no occasion to interfere with the award on account of loss of dependency as it appears to be adequate in the facts of the case. 11. However on the question of non pecuniary loss to appellants claimants on account of death of Foondi, I am of the view that the tribunal has been niggardly in granting only Rs. 7,000/- in all to claimants on account of non pecuniary loss to them . It is not dispute that at the time of accident on 6.5.1997 the deceased Foondi left behind four minor children between 9 and 13 years. Children and mother share an umbilical cord, and the death of the mother aside of being traumatic entails deprivation of love and affection of mother through the crucial years of the growing up of minor children. The Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., JT 2012 (6) SC 301 , granted compensation under the head of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- to each of the parents as claimants, who lost their young son in a motor accident. In my considered opinion, the loss of a mother for a minor child would be more traumatic and the loss on account of love and affection is deeper.In my considered opinion the claimants i.e. appellants No. 2 to 4, the minor children of the deceased Foondi should entitled to a compensation of Rs. In my considered opinion, the loss of a mother for a minor child would be more traumatic and the loss on account of love and affection is deeper.In my considered opinion the claimants i.e. appellants No. 2 to 4, the minor children of the deceased Foondi should entitled to a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- each for the loss of love and affection of their mother. The appellant No. 1 the claimant, husband of the deceased Foondi who lost his wife in his young age and was thus deprived of marital comfort and company of his wife hold also be entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of love and affection as also consortium. 12. Consequently, the appellants, as against the award amount of Rs. 7,000/- in the aggregate for non-pecuniary loss are entitled loss are entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- each on account of death of deceased Foondi aggregating to Rs. 1,25,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of three months from today, failing which the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 95 per annum thereon from today till the date of payment.The award dated 8.12.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals Beawar is accordingly modified.The Civil miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of.Appeal disposed of. *******