JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 03.10.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (for short "the Tribunal") in MACC No. 1-S/2 of 2005, titled as Ramesh Kumar and another versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,83,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimants and the insurer have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus, the only issue to be determined in this appeal is - whether the amount awarded is adequate? 5. In order to determine this issue, it is necessary to give a resume of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the appeal in hand. 6. It is averred in the claim petition that deceased-Kankhu Devi was 55 years of age when she became the victim of a vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Amar Singh Negi, while driving bus bearing registration No. HP-25-0767, owned by HRTC, rashly and negligently, on 14.11.2004 near place Narkanda. 7. The respondents in the claim petition resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 19.06.2006: "1. Whether Smt. Kankhu Devi on 14.11.2004, while travelling on bus No. HP-25-0767 suffered injuries to which she succumbed when the bus met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Relief." 9. Parties led evidence. 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, decided the claim petition in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 11. Issues No. 1 and 3 are not in dispute. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 3 are upheld. 12. OPR 4. Relief." 9. Parties led evidence. 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, decided the claim petition in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 11. Issues No. 1 and 3 are not in dispute. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 3 are upheld. 12. Issue No. 2 is in dispute so far it relates to adequacy of compensation. The claimants have specifically averred in the claim petition that the deceased was a house wife and was earning Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 7,000/- per month by agricultural and horticultural vocations. Further averred that the claimants have to engage a servant for looking after the affairs of the house and the orchard by paying Rs. 3,000/- per month to him. 13. Admittedly, the deceased was a house wife, was growing vegetables, was maintaining the household chores and looking after the orchard. The claimants are the sons of the deceased. They have lost the love and affection of their mother and money cannot be a substitute for the loss of love of a mother. It has taken away their entire comforts. 14. The claimants have specifically pleaded that they had to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the servant for managing their house and orchard. Thus, by guess work, it can be safely said that the deceased would have been earning not less than Rs. 4,500/- per month. One third is to be deducted towards her personal expenses in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case titled as Reshma Kumari & others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR SCW 3120. Thus, it is held that the monthly contribution of the deceased towards her family was Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 8' in view of the judgments (supra). 15. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- x 12 x 8 = Rs. 2,88,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is upheld. 16. Having said so, the claimants are held entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,88,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- x 12 x 8 = Rs. 2,88,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is upheld. 16. Having said so, the claimants are held entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,88,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 3,18,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 17. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation before the Registry within eight weeks. On deposition, the same be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. 18. Having glance of the above discussions, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. Cross Objections No. 484 of 2008. 19. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the cross objections are also disposed of accordingly. 20. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.