JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Instant miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the legal heirs of Smt. Munni Devi. On 13.03.2004 she was travelling in a bolero car. At around 05:00 A.M. when the said car reached at Agra Road Mauja Karodi Police Station, Manpur, from the side of Balaji Mod, a trailer bearing registration No. RJ-01-G- 6261 came and collided with the car, as a result thereof Smt. Munni Devi died. Smt. Munni Devi was survived by her husband and six minor children. 2. The finding returned by ld. tribunal that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending trailer, has not been assailed before this Court. 3. Claimants-appellants, herein are aggrieved against the award of compensation of Rs.2,57,000/- by ld. tribunal. 4. It is urged in this appeal that the amount awarded by ld. tribunal is on the lower side and, hence, same is required to be enhanced. 5. Admittedly, Smt. Munni Devi was a housewife. 6. Mr. Nitesh Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants, has submitted that Smt. Munni Devi was working as a tailor and used to supplement income of the family. Counsel further submitted that ld. tribunal has wrongly held that sufficient material was not placed on record to infer that Smt. Munni Devi was working as a tailor. However, it is not deniable fact that Smt. Munni Devi was housewife. Ld. tribunal assessed the notional income of Smt.Munni Devi, house wife as Rs.15000/- per annum. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of view that claimants have failed to prove that deceased Smt. Munni Devi was working as a Tailor, hence, her income is to be notionally determined considering her to be housewife. 8. Counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh and another v. Dilbagh Singh and Others, reported in 2014 ACJ 1817, wherein relying upon the various judgments, it was held by Division Bench that the notional income of the housewife is to be taken as Rs.3000/- per month. 9. It will be apposite to reproduce here following portion of the judgment of the Division Bench rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit singh and another (supra) :- "9. 9. It will be apposite to reproduce here following portion of the judgment of the Division Bench rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit singh and another (supra) :- "9. In the case of Dayal Singh and others v. Hardip Singh and others, FAO No.832 of 1986, decided on 11.11.2008, the deceased was a housewife aged 39 years. Her notional income was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month in view of the observations made in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra) and the compensation was accordingly awarded without any deduction. 10. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambaran Singh, FAO No.7193 of 2010, decided on 03.12.2010, the Tribunal had taken value of the services rendered by the housewife @ Rs.3,000/- per month and took the extent of dependency at the same amount and while adopting the suitable multiplier, awarded the compensation. Though it was contended by the respondent therein that there ought to have been a deduction for her personal expenses but the said contention was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. 11. In the case of Manjit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, FAO No.6720 of 2010 decided on 05.12.2011, the deceased was a widowed mother/housewife, aged 45 years. The Tribunal assessed her notional income @ Rs.3,000/- per month but deducted ?rd amount on account of her personal expenses which was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and awarded the entire amount of Rs.3,000/-. 12. On the other hand, in the case of Rajinder Sharma v. Naresh Kumar and others, FAO No.886 of 2007, decided on 14.10.2010, the notional income of the housewife was taken @ Rs.3,000/- per month but an amount equal to ?rd was deducted. 13. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar, FAO No. 3310 of 2012 [6], FAO No. 1517 of 2003, decided on 22.09.2010,, the deceased was a housewife. In this case also, an amount of ?rd was deducted out of her total income which was calculated for the purpose of dependency. 14. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jagdish and others, FAO No.4004 of 2005, decided on 15.09.2010, income of the deceased housewife was assessed @ Rs.3,000/- per month and ?rd amount was deducted out of it. 15. 14. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jagdish and others, FAO No.4004 of 2005, decided on 15.09.2010, income of the deceased housewife was assessed @ Rs.3,000/- per month and ?rd amount was deducted out of it. 15. After the decision in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra), the notional income of the housewife is estimated according to their age. The notional income of the housewife was taken to be Rs.3,000/- per month if she had been between the age group of 34 to 59 at the time of accident. The only riddle which is to be solved by us is as to whether ?rd cut should be applied on the notional income or not? The answer to this question is couched in the aforesaid extracted paragraph of the judgment of Lata Wadhwa's case (supra), as in that case, the Supreme Court was searching for a modest notional income of the housewife who was not earning an income but rendering multifarious services while managing all the chores of the family. Since it is a case where the Courts are confronted with the notional income of the housewife on account of her multifarious services which not only includes rearing the children but also performing all matrimonial obligations, in our considered view, the deduction of ?rd out of her notional income is not warranted." 10. I find merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants and I am also in respectful agreement with the observations made by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. 11. This Court also believe that the value of services rendered by wife and mother cannot be assessed in terms of money. The housewife is available for twenty-four hours and she caters to the needs of the children and master of the house. 12. The Supreme Court, in number of times has held that the housewife/home maker not only shower affection, run house smoothly, save income of the family, but also act as domestic attendant of the family day and night out, therefore, her notional income assessed as Rs.3000/- per month is not on higher side. 13. The Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court further held that where the notional income is assessed, deduction cannot be made towards personal living expenses of the deceased. 14. 13. The Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court further held that where the notional income is assessed, deduction cannot be made towards personal living expenses of the deceased. 14. In the case of Paramjit Singh and another (supra), it was held as under :- "We may hasten to add that in all those cases, referred to above, in which ?rd cut has been applied, no reasoning has been given by the learned Single Judge rather in the cases, referred to above, in FAO No.3310 of 2012 [7] ***** which ?rd cut has not been applied, the learned Single Judge had observed that Rs.3,000/- per month is assessed as monthly value of her services and not her monthly income and, therefore, the concept of deduction cannot be applied. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that while calculating the notional income of the housewife, the entire income should be taken as dependency of the legal heirs without applying any cut much-less ?rd, as has been done in certain cases." 15. Having perused the impugned judgment of the ld. tribunal, this Court is of the view that ld. tribunal had gravely erred in assessing the notional income of the housewife as Rs.15,000/- per annum. 16. Thus, there is need to revise the income of the deceased, and therefore, same is enhanced and notionally determined as Rs.36,000/- per annum. 17. So far multiplier of sixteen applied by ld. tribunal is concerned, same is justified and no variation is called for. 18. Ld. tribunal has assessed "consortium" as Rs.5000/-, same is on the lower side. 19. In legal parlance, "consortium" is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection etc., as per ratio of law laid down in the case of Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others, reported in (2013) 9 S.C.C. 54 is required to be enhanced. 20. In the case of Rajesh and Others (supra) in Para 20, Supreme Court has observed as under :- "20. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. 20. In the case of Rajesh and Others (supra) in Para 20, Supreme Court has observed as under :- "20. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santhosh Devi (supra). We may therefore, revisit the practise of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-, In legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium." 21. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium." 21. Taking into account the ratio of law laid down in the case of Rajesh & Others (supra), the amount of consortium is enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.50,000/-. It is to be noted here that in the case of Rajesh and others (supra), accident had taken place in year, 2007 and, hence, consortium @ Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded. In the present case, accident had taken place in year, 2004, therefore, amount of consortium @ Rs.50,000/- will be just and proper. The ld. tribunal, in all, has awarded Rs.10,000/- to the six children towards "loss of care, guidance & affection of mother". The same is also on the lower side, each child is entitled to Rs.30,000/- for loss of care, guidance & affection of the mother. The ld. tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs.2000/- as funeral expenses, same is also required to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. 22. Consequently, taking totality of circumstances, compensation to be awarded to the claimants by ld. tribunal is required to be reassessed as under :- Sl. No. Heads Calculation (i) Notional earning of housewife Rs.36,000/- per annum (ii) Compensation after multiplier of 16 is applied Rs.36,000/- x 16 = Rs.5,76,000/- (iii) Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/- (iv) Loss of care and guidance for six minor children Rs.30,000/- each x 6 = Rs. 1,80,000 (v) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation awarded Rs.8,21,000/- 23. Thus, the amount awarded by ld tribunal is enhanced to Rs.8,21,000/- in above terms. The said amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 24. It is, hereby, ordered that the enhanced amount shall be kept in the Monthly Income Scheme in the post office initially for a lock-up period of three-years and the interest accrued upon the deposit shall be paid to the husband of the deceased and six minor children proportionately, on monthly basis. 25. The Tribunal in the best interest of the claimants, shall keep the amount in the Monthly Income Scheme with the Indian Post Office and shall open separate accounts in the name of each claimant. The amount due to minor daughters shall be encashed at time of their marriage. 26. 25. The Tribunal in the best interest of the claimants, shall keep the amount in the Monthly Income Scheme with the Indian Post Office and shall open separate accounts in the name of each claimant. The amount due to minor daughters shall be encashed at time of their marriage. 26. However, a further direction is, hereby, issued to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Alwar to acquaint the claimants regarding the amount, which has accrued to them by way of enhancement and the fact that the amount shall be kept in Monthly Income Scheme in the Indian Post Office for the benefit of the claimants. 27. The above direction regarding deposit in Monthly Income Scheme with Indian Post Office has been issued as it has been brought to the notice of this Court, that go-between or relations fritter away with amount awarded as compensation, on the ground that money has been spent towards litigation expenses. 28. With the above modification in the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behrod (Alwar), present appeal stands disposed of.