JUDGMENT : Instant appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 04.03.2004 passed by the Judge, MACT, Sojat District Pali in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 62/2002 whereby, the learned Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition of the claimants, granted compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its recovery. As per facts of the case, the claimants filed a claim petition to the effect that on 13.12.2001 at around 5:45 PM the wife of appellant no.1, Smt. Manju Rai who was sitting behind the motorcycle of respondent no.1, fell off from the motorcycle due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 and suffered grievous injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries. In the claim petition, the appellants have attributed cause of accident as rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It is stated that at the time of death, Manju Rai was 28 years old who did household work & stitching and used to earn Rs. 6000/- per month. While showing his monthly income as Rs.6000/-, his dependants filed a claim petition under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the Act before the learned Tribunal. In the claim petition, the appellants claimed total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- under various heads. For substantiating the claim, requisite documents were also submitted with the claim petition by the appellants. The claim is contested by respondents No.1 & 2 and the facts averred in the claim petition are refuted. The respondent no.1 denied the accident to be caused by his motorcycle, whereas, respondent no.2 attributed negligence on the part of driver for occurrence of the accident and violation of the conditions of the policy. On the strength of pleadings of rival parties, the learned Tribunal settled five issues for determination which reads as under :- “1. Whether on 13.12.2001 at 5:45 PM near Pavrad river, non-applicant no.1 Parasmal drove motorcycle bearing Engine No. OIL 18 M 13847 Chasis No. OIL 20 P 14880 rash and negligently at high speed as a result of which pillion rider Manju Rai fell down and succumbed to injuries ? 2. Whether on 13.12.2001 at 5:45 PM near Pavrad river, non-applicant no.1 Parasmal drove motorcycle bearing Engine No. OIL 18 M 13847 Chasis No. OIL 20 P 14880 rash and negligently at high speed as a result of which pillion rider Manju Rai fell down and succumbed to injuries ? 2. Whether claimants are entitled to get compensation as claimed in the claim petition, if yes, then to what extent and whether non-applicants are liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants? 3. Whether driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving license which amounted to breach of policy conditions and non-applicant no.2 Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation ? 4. Whether the offending motorcycle at the time of accident was not being used as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and registered and therefore, non-applicant no. 2 is not liable to pay the compensation? 5. Relief. After conclusion of trial, the learned Tribunal heard arguments and decided Issue No.1, relating to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. While switching on to Issue No.2, for determining the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence, quantified monthly income of the deceased as Rs.900/- per month and by applying multiplier of ten, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000/- for loss of services. That apart, under other heads, appellants were awarded Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection of first appellants’ wife and mother of appellant no.2 & 3. The total amount of compensation was, thus, determined to the tune of Rs.1,40,000/-. It is, in this background, appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence and materials available on record for assessing monthly income of the deceased inasmuch as there were cogent materials on record to prove monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.6,000/-. It is submitted that while making assessment of quantum of compensation, future prospects and advancement in life and career should also be taken into consideration, therefore, this aspect requires consideration to enhance the amount of compensation to make it just and reasonable. It is submitted that while making assessment of quantum of compensation, future prospects and advancement in life and career should also be taken into consideration, therefore, this aspect requires consideration to enhance the amount of compensation to make it just and reasonable. It is argued that while estimating the ‘services’ of a housewife, a narrow meaning should not be given to the meaning of the word ‘services’ and therefore, the Tribunal has awarded compensation on lower side under this head. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the amount of compensation awarded for treatment expenses is also on the lower side. Further loss of consortium to first appellant and loss of love and affection to other dependants of the deceased is grossly inadequate and the same is liable to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal & anr. Vs. National Insurance Company & Ors reported in 2011 R.A.R 24 (SC), ‘Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr reported in 2011 ACJ 1 , ‘Rajesh & Ors Vs. Rajbir Singh Singh & ors reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, ‘Munna Lal Jain & anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors reported in 2015 SC CANDID 521. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no case for enhancement of compensation is made out and, therefore, no interference with the impugned award is called for. Learned counsel for the respondents contend that the learned Tribunal, after examining the entire fact scenario, has awarded a reasonable amount of compensation under different heads, which is not liable to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that neither of the claimants were dependants upon the deceased who was not having any regular source of income. Moreover, the appellant claimant husband has performed second marriage after death of deceased. With regard to appellants claim for future prospects of deceased, learned counsel for the respondents contend that as there was no concrete proof about the income of the deceased, as such the learned Tribunal has not committed any error for not awarding compensation for future prospects. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused impugned award and judgment and scanned the entire record of the case. It is an admitted fact that deceased was a housewife having no regular source of income. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused impugned award and judgment and scanned the entire record of the case. It is an admitted fact that deceased was a housewife having no regular source of income. Although it is alleged in the claim petition that the deceased used to do tailoring work but the learned tribunal has specifically observed that the claimant has failed to prove that deceased used to earn Rs. 200/- per day by way of tailoring work. As far as the income of the non-earning housewife/mother is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of has held that it is impossible to measure in terms of money the loss of personal care and attention suffered by the husband and children on the demise of the house wife and therefore, legislature had fixed the notional income of a non-earning person at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and in case of a spouse, 1/3rd income of the earning/surviving spouse for the purpose of computing the compensation. Thus in absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependants 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 judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra) has held as under :- “32. In our view, it is highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to compute the compensation payable to the dependants of a deceased wife/mother, who does not have regular income, by comparing her services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee, who works for a fixed period. The gratuitous services rendered by wife/mother to the husband and children cannot be equated with the services of an employee and no evidence or data can possibly be produced for estimating the value of such services. It is virtually impossible to measure in terms of money the loss of personal care and attention suffered by the husband and children on the demise of the housewife. It is virtually impossible to measure in terms of money the loss of personal care and attention suffered by the husband and children on the demise of the housewife. In its wisdom, the legislature had, as early as in 1994, fixed the notional income of a non-earning person at Rs.15,000/- per annum and in case of a spouse, 1/3rd income of the earning/surviving spouse for the purpose of computing the compensation. 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 dependants 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 General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others (supra), U.P. S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra (supra), Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra) 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. 33. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that while in his deposition, appellant No.1 had categorically stated that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000 per annum by paintings and handicrafts, the respondents did not lead any evidence to controvert the same. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal and the High Court altogether ignored the income of the deceased. The Tribunal did advert to the Second Schedule to the Act and observed that the income of the deceased could be assessed at Rs.5000 per month (Rs.60,000 per annum) because the income of her spouse was Rs.15,416 per month and then held that after making deduction, the total loss of dependency could be Rs.6,00,000. However, without any tangible reason, the Tribunal decided to reduce the amount of compensation by observing that the deceased was actually non-earning member and the amount of compensation would be too much. However, without any tangible reason, the Tribunal decided to reduce the amount of compensation by observing that the deceased was actually non-earning member and the amount of compensation would be too much. The High Court went a step further and dismissed the appeal by erroneously presuming that neither of the claimants were dependant upon the deceased and services rendered by her could be estimated as Rs.1,250/- per month.” In view of the law laid down in the above case, the services rendered by the house-wives active in life for managing the entire family cannot be equated with the services of an employee and no evidence or data can possibly be produced for estimating the value of such services. Thus, it is impossible to evaluate in terms of money, the loss of personal care and attention suffered by the husband and children on the demise of such house-wives. The Tribunal is not bound to follow the provisions of II Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act regarding notional income, but criteria specified in clause (6)(b) of the II Schedule may be taken into account. Clause 6 of Second schedule reads as under :- “Clause 6 of the Second Schedule 6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident:- Fatal and disability in non-fatal accidents: (a) Non-earning persons - Rs.15,000/- p.a. (b) Spouse - Rs.1/3rd of income of the Earning/surviving spouse In case of other injuries only "general damage" as applicable." The Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal (Supra) has held that while deciding the Claim Petition filed under section 166 Motor Vehicle Act regarding death of a housewife in road accident, whose income is not proved by any documentary evidence in case of a spouse, one third income of earning/surviving spouse should be reasonable income according to the services rendered by her towards her family members. Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependants of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in clause (6)(b) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala State Transport Corporation Vs Susamma Thomas (Mrs) & Ors, U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Trilok Chandra (supra), Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. and also take guidance from the judgment in Lata Wadhwa’s case. In the case in hand, the claimant appellant AW/1 Praveen Rai has stated that he used to earn Rs. 150-200/- per day by way of running a private clinic which comes to Rs. 6000/- per month and while computing the income of deceased 1/3rd income of the earning/surviving spouse, can safely be taken to be Rs. 2000/- per month which comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum and after making deduction of one third of the income i.e. Rs.8000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 16000/- per annum. At the time of accident, the age of the claimant Praveen Rai was 34 years as per his own statement and as per Ex.4 postmortem report, the deceased Manju Rai was 26 years old, therefore, in the opinion of this court, the multiplier of 16 is required to be applied as per view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 310. Thus, while considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- and after making one-third deduction against personal expenses and applying multiplier of sixteen, the amount of compensation under the head “Loss of Dependency” can be worked out as follows:- Rs.2,000 X 1/3 = Rs.667/- (personal expenses) Rs.2000 – Rs.667= Rs.1,333/- (dependency) Rs.1,333 X 12 X 16=Rs.2,55,936/- (loss of dependency) Thus, in view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 04.03.2004 passed by the Tribunal is modified to extent of loss of services and same is hereby enhanced from Rs. 1,08,000/- to Rs. 2,55,936/- and the appellants are declared entitled for enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,47,936/- as indicated in the foregoing para. The enhanced amount of Rs.1,47,936/- would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application. Respondents are directed to ensure payment of enhanced amount with interest to the appellants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.