JUDGMENT : Raj Mohan Singh, J. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation on account of death of Smt. Rajo in a motor vehicular accident. 2. Brief facts as gathered from the record are that initially two claim petitions were filed in respect of same occurrence in which deceased Rajo had succumbed to the injuries suffered by her and Mahipal sustained minor injuries. Both the claim petitions were dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal') against which FAO Nos. 4058 and 4059 of 2011 were filed before this Court. Both the appeals were accepted and the cases were remanded back to the Tribunal with direction to decide afresh. 3. In the petition filed by Mahipal i.e. MACT No. 74 of 2009, the Tribunal granted lump sum amount of compensation of Rs. 9,000/- as there was no sufficient evidence available on record to show that the claimant-Mahipal had sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. 4. In the second bearing MACT No. 75 of 2009, it was held that deceased Rajo was a housewife, who received fatal injury. Though there was no evidence of income of the deceased, but considering her to be a housewife, her monthly income was fixed to be Rs. 3,600/- per month, deduction to the tune of ?rd was applied towards her personal expenses and remaining ?rd of the income i.e. Rs. 2,400/- was treated to be family dependency. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the yearly family dependency was Rs. 28,800/- (Rs. 2,400 x 12). Thereafter Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 to the entitlement of the deceased and calculated an amount of Rs. 4,32,000/- (Rs. 28,800 x 15). An amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards last rites and Rs. 5,000/- towards consortium were also awarded, thereby making the total amount of compensation to be Rs. 4,42,000/- (Rs. 4,32,000 + Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 5000). The amount of compensation so awarded to the appellants was also to carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation of the amount. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. In case of housewife the criteria specified in clause (6) of Second Schedule referred to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has to be looked into. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. In case of housewife the criteria specified in clause (6) of Second Schedule referred to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has to be looked into. The contribution made by the wife to the family is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. In evaluating notional income of deceased housewife, ?rd deduction towards personal expenses while computing dependency of the family is not to be made in view of Paramjit Singh v. Dilbag Singh @ Bagga, 2014 4 RCR(Civil) 895 (DB). 7. In all fairness, the income of the deceased as Rs. 3600/- per month assessed by the Tribunal is just and appropriate, however by applying the clause (6) of Second Schedule of the Act, the compensation has to be awarded without making any deduction. Since monthly income of the deceased was assessed to be Rs. 3,600/-, but deduction towards personal expenses were not to be made in case of housewife in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 4 RCR(Civil) 673. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs. 3600 x 12 = Rs. 43,200/-. Since the deceased was of 35 years of age, therefore, multiplier of 17 would be just and appropriate in view of ratio held in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . If the annual income of the deceased i.e. Rs. 43,200 is multiplied by 17, the amount comes to be Rs. 43,200 x 17 = Rs. 7,34,400/-. As per ratio laid down in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection to the children and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded under the conventional head. In this way total compensation comes out to be Rs. 9,59,400/- (Rs. 7,34,400 + Rs. 1,00,000 + Rs. 1,00,000 + Rs. 25,000). So, in this manner an amount of Rs. 5,17,400/- (Rs. 9,59,400 Rs. 4,42,000/-) stands enhanced in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The claimants are held entitled to receive the aforesaid amount of compensation in equal shares. 9,59,400/- (Rs. 7,34,400 + Rs. 1,00,000 + Rs. 1,00,000 + Rs. 25,000). So, in this manner an amount of Rs. 5,17,400/- (Rs. 9,59,400 Rs. 4,42,000/-) stands enhanced in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The claimants are held entitled to receive the aforesaid amount of compensation in equal shares. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till final realisation of the amount. 9. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is accepted.