JUDGMENT : Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant claimants against the judgment and award dated 18.05.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in MACT Case No. 261/2009 whereby, the claim petition of the claimants has been allowed to the extent of Rs.2,25,780/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in catena of judgments of High Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been held that value of domestic services of a lady, rendered towards her home, cannot be ignored and value of such domestic services can be assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month. It is argued that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the case and income of the deceased has been assessed @ Rs.3,000/- per month only which is apparently on lower side. It is submitted that undisputedly, no evidence has been produced by the respondents to contradict the evidences of the appellant claimants and therefore, the findings in respect of income of the deceased are perverse and contrary to the evidences available on record. 3. It is further argued that learned Tribunal has assessed the age of deceased between the age group of 61-65 years whereas, it is clear from the oral evidence on record that the deceased was 50-55 years of age at the time of accident. Even as per postmortem report, the deceased was 60 years of age and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 11 but the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 7 only. 4. Per contra, counsel for the Insurance company argued that claimants are major sons of the deceased who are not dependent on the deceased. Therefore, the learned tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. AW/2 Nanu Ram in his statement stated that deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month out of agriculture and other works and as per postmortem report, the deceased Smt. Chandi Bai was 60 years of age. The Tribunal has determined the dependency of Rs.24,000/- per annum and calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,25,780/- which does not call for any interference. 5. The Tribunal has determined the dependency of Rs.24,000/- per annum and calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,25,780/- which does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 6. It is not in dispute that the claimants are major sons of deceased Chandi Bai. The claimant Prahlad is aged 42 years, Ganpat is aged 39 years, Gopa is aged 37 years and Bholi Ram is aged about 35 years. 7. As per pleadings and evidence, the deceased Chandi Bai was a lady of rural background. She was not engaged in any type of job being permanent in nature. The Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased @ Rs.3000/- per month from agriculture and labour and after deducting ?rd for personal expenses, the loss of income has been assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Lata Wadha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. : (2001) 8 SCC 197 while considering the issue with regard to deceased-housewives has held as under :- “So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000/- per annum in cases of some and Rs.10,000/- for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given data for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the data for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. But even in the absence of such data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore, should be recalculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs.36,000/- and thereafter, applying the multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/- given under the Report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs.10,000/- per annum and the multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the values of services rendered at Rs.10,000/- per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs.20,000/- per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be redetermined, taking the value of services rendered at Rs.20,000/- per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter, adding Rs.50,000/- towards the conventional figure.” 8. Thus, the compensation awarded to the claimants while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month and applying a multiplier of 7 cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable. 9. As far as the “loss of consortium” and “the loss of love and affection” are concerned, suffice it to say the learned Tribunal has granted each appellant Rs.10,000/- for the same. Needless to say a compensation award is meant to monetarily compensate the claimants for the loss suffered by them. Considering the fact that the learned Tribunal, after a thorough analysis of the evidence on record, had granted a compensation of Rs.2,25,780/- along with an interest of 9% from 06.10.2009, the award is more than just, sufficient and reasonable. For the reason stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award. 10. This appeal being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.