JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal is directed, against, the pronouncement made by the learned MACTShimla, upon, MAC Case No. 25-S/2 of 2016, wherein compensation amount borne in a sum of Rs. 29,13,502/- stood assessed, vis--vis, the claimants, and, interest @ 7.5% per annum, from, the date of petition till, its realization, was mandated to accrue thereon. The apt indemnificatory liability was fastened, upon, the insurer. The aggrieved insurer has contested the findings, returned, upon, the issue appertaining, to the relevant mishap, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of driving, of, the offending vehicle, by its driver. On anvil, of,(a) with the apt negligent act, of, the driver of the offending vehicle visibly remaining unpleaded, thereupon when hence no tort stands ascribed, vis--vis, the driver of the offending vehicle concerned, b) whereas, apt ascription thereof, and, adduction of evidence, in consonance therewith, being imperative, for, thereupon, the, apt indemnificatory liability, being tenably fastenable, hence upon the Insurer, ( c) contrarily visible wants thereof, hence render unbefitting the finding(s), returned, upon, issue No 1, nor hence the fastening, of, the apt indemnificatory liability upon the insurer, is, enjoined to be validated. However, the aforesaid submission, addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the Insurer, is straightway rejected, given the claimant candidly, in her examination-in-chief , hence making loud/candid echoing(s), (i) qua the driver of the offending vehicle, for, obviating its colliding with cattle, who suddenly appeared on the road, his, rather thereupon swerving the vehicle, whereafter, its taking off, from the road, and, falling into a gorge. The claimant was borne in the ill-fated vehicle. The aforesaid enunciation(s), made by the claimant, while, rendering her testification, borne in her examination-in-chief, though, were concerted to be ridden, vis--vis, their apt efficacy, by the learned counsel for the Insurer, during the ordeal, of, his holding her, to, an exacting crossexamination, (i) yet, in course thereof, he was not enable to elicit, any echoing(s) from her, for hence belying, the, aforesaid apt ascription(s), made, by her, in, her examination-in-chief, (ii) thereupon credibility is to be imputed, vis--vis, the aforesaid echoing(s), borne, in her examination-in-chief. Even if, there is no trite echoing(s) are rendered by her, qua, the driver of the offending vehicle, being negligent in driving it, also, thereupon, no argument can be erected, qua the relevant mishap, being not a sequel, of, the apt vehicle, being hence plied/ used, on a public road, (iii) conspicuously, when the provisions borne in Section 166 of the M.V. Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: "(i) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be." (iv) rather enjoin pleading(s) being reared, and, also enjoin qua proof, being adduced qua the apt mishap being a sequel, of, the apt plying/user, of, the apt vehicle, upon, the public road, (v) and, unless evidence, vis--vis apt breach(es), of, the apt policy, rather emanate, thereupon, only the apt indemnificatory liability, may be not hence tenably fastenable upon the Insurer (vi) thereupon dehors any ascription(s), vis--vis, any negligence, by the claimant, vis--vis, the driver of the apt vehicle, nor hers making any testification, in consonance therewith, does not perse obviously render her petition to be rather oustable, significantly when the relevant mishap occurred during the course of apt vehicle being plied/used on a public road, (vii) moreso, when clear evidence exists in display qua the occurrence, of, the relevant mishap, being a sequel of the apt vehicle being plied/used, on a public road, whereupon, the apt statutory parameters are satiated. Even otherwise, if, on anvil, of, the aforesaid echoing(s), rendered by the claimant, in her examination-in-chief, hence the, principle of res-ipsa-loquitur, does beget, its attraction. Even otherwise, if, on anvil, of, the aforesaid echoing(s), rendered by the claimant, in her examination-in-chief, hence the, principle of res-ipsa-loquitur, does beget, its attraction. (viii) AND if, upon attraction, hereat, of, the principle of res-ipsa-loquitor, the onus, of, disproving, the, loud bespeaking(s), in consonance therewith, borne in the examination-in-chief, of the claimant, do, rather enjoin the insurer, to, by adducing evidence, hence dispel efficacy thereof, yet the insurer omitted to rather dispel, the apt efficacies thereof, (ix) whereupon the mode, of, rolling of the vehicle into a gorge, rather loudly and visibly, underscores qua hence, the, principle of res-ipsa-loquitur, being squarely attracted, (x) whereupon, upon, attraction hereat, of, the principle, of, res-ipsa-loquitur, and, with no evidence, for repelling efficacy thereof, rather standing adduced, by the Insurer, hence constrains this Court to conclude, qua its comprising, the apt legally expostulated parameter, for hence enabling, the learned MACT concerned, to return hence, the, apt valid findings, upon the issue appertaining, to the apt vehicle, standing beset with the apt tragedy, (xi) reiteratedly upon, its hence impliedly rather applying the principle of res-ipsa loquitur, dehors, no upon findings, in consonance therewith, being returned by the learned MACT concerned. 2. The apt disability certificate, borne in Ext. PW3/A, unfolds qua the claimant standing entailed with a 100% disability, and, factum thereof stands testified, even by PW-3. Consequently, given the criticality and magnititude, of, the disability, entailed, upon the claimant, in sequel of hers'' being encumbered, with, the apt injuries, as suffered by her, in sequel, to the relevant mishap, (i) thereupon, the computation of compensation, as made by the learned Tribunal, comprised in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, under, the head "loss of enjoyment of life", does not suffer, from, any infirmity, (ii) given hers concomitantly, being perennially deprived, to, enjoy her matrimonial life, to, the fullest. 3. The learned counsel for the Insurer, does not contest, the computation of compensation, made by the Tribunal, (i) upon the head(s) appertaining to, "pain and suffering through hospitalization", and, ii) upon the head appertaining to the "medical expenses", (iii) besides upon the head, appertaining to the "traveling expenses", and "special diet and attendant charges". However, he seriously contests, the factum, of the learned Tribunal rather computing the income of the claimant, in a sum of Rs. However, he seriously contests, the factum, of the learned Tribunal rather computing the income of the claimant, in a sum of Rs. 6000/- per mensem, and, after applying thereon, the, multiplier of 18, its, hence proceeding to assess compensation, borne in a sum of Rs. 12,96,000/-, conspicuously under, the head "loss of earning and earning capacity". The aforesaid submission has merit (iv) given there not existing on record, any evidence, for hence supporting the aforesaid computation. It appears that the learned Tribunal, while, making the aforesaid computation, has depended, upon, the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court, in case titled as " Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others versus Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others , (2015) 4 SCC 237 ", wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court in paragraphs No. 10 to 13, paragraphs whereof are extracted hereinafter: "10. Even assuming Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi was not self-employed doing embroidery and tailoring work, the fact remains that she was a housewife and a homemaker. It is hard to monetize the domestic work done by a housemother. The services of the mother/wife is available 24 hours and her duties are never fixed. Courts have recognized the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of money. A housewife/homemaker does not work by the clock and she is in constant attendance of the family throughout and such services rendered by the homemaker has to be necessarily kept in view while calculating the loss of dependency. Thus even otherwise, taking deceased Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi as the homemaker, it is reasonable to fix her income at Rs. 3000/- per month. 11. Recognizing the servies of the homemaker and that domestic services have to be recognized in terms of money, in Arun Kumar Aggarwal vs.National Insurance Co. Ltd, this Court has held as under: (SCC p.246, paras 62-63) "62, The alternative to imputing money values is to meaure the time taken to produce these services which are commercially viable. One has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered by women in the household sustain a supply of labour to the economy and keep human societies going by weaving the social fabric and keeping it in good repair. One has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered by women in the household sustain a supply of labour to the economy and keep human societies going by weaving the social fabric and keeping it in good repair. If we take these services for granted and do not attack any value to this, this may escalate the unforeseen costs in terms of deterioration of both human capabilities and social fabric. 63. Household work performed by women throughout India is more than US$612.8 billion per year (Evangelical Social Action Forum and Health Bridege, p.17).We often forget that the time spent by women in doing household work as homemakers is the time which they van devote to paid work or to their education. This lack of sensitiveness and recognition of their work mainly contributes to women''s high rate of poverty and their consequential oppression in society, as well as various physical, social and psychological problems. The courts and the Tribunals should do well to factor these considerations in assessing compensation for housewives who are victims of road accidents and quantifying the amount in the name of fixing ''just compensation''." 12. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,24,000 as against the same, the claimants have not field any appeal. As against the award passed by the Tribunal when the claimants have not filed any appeal, the question arises whether the income of the deceased could be increased and compensation could be enhanced. In terms of Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, the courts/the Tribunals are to pass awards determining the amount of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by the legal standards. The power of the Courts in awarding reasonable compensation was emphasized by this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Mohd. Nasir and Ningamma V. Union of India Insurance Co.Ltd. As against the award passed by the Tribunal even though the claimants have not field any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of Courts/the Tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, it is appropriate to increase the compensation. 13. In order to award just and reasonable compensation income of the deceased is taken as Rs, 3000/- per month, Deducing 1/3rd for personal expenses contribution of the deceased to the family is calculated at Rs. 2000 per month. 13. In order to award just and reasonable compensation income of the deceased is taken as Rs, 3000/- per month, Deducing 1/3rd for personal expenses contribution of the deceased to the family is calculated at Rs. 2000 per month. At the time of her death deceased Jayvantiben was aged about 22 years, proper multiplier to be adopted is 18. Adopting multiplier of 18, total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs. 4,32,000 (Rs. 2000x12x18). With respect to the award of compensation under conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5000 towards loss of estate and Rs. 3000 towards funeral expenses totaling Rs. 8000. The High Court has awarded conventional damages of Rs. 15,000/- i.e. Rs. 10,000 towards loss of estate and Rs. 5000 towards funeral expenses. The courts below have not awarded any compensation towards loss of consortium and towards love and affection. In Rajesh v Rajbir Singh and Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan, this Court has awarded substantial amount of Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection to the minor children. Toward loss of estate and funeral expenses, award of compensation of Rs. 15,000 awarded by the High Court is maintained. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,47,000/". (i) thereupon, has, vis--vis, the dependants of the deceased, home makers'' concerned, visibly thereat the deceased housewife, hence, made the apt pecuniary computation, borne in a sum of Rs. 3000/-, conspicuously, vis--vis, her contribution towards the estate (i) and, upon her demise, with loss, hence befalling upon her dependants, thereupon, the later being enjoined to be monetarily recompensed. Apparently, any purported succor, as, drawn therefrom, is, visibly workable only, upon, demise, of, a housewife, and, is patently unworkable qua any disabled/homemaker/housewife, (ii) besides any purported determination, made, on anvil thereof, by the learned Tribunal, in its hence computing, her contribution towards her home, and, thereafter, its making monetary computation, singularly, vis-vis her, is grossly inapt (iii) given the apt computation being enjoined, to be made, qua the dependants'', only upon her demise. Consequently, the computation, as, made by the learned Tribunal, vis--vis, the disabled hereat claimant, under the head "loss of earning and earning capacity", is in gross, and, stark transgression, vis--vis the apt ratio decidendi, borne in the judgment (iv) reiteratedly, when ratio decidendi, propounded therein, is squarely applicable, only, vis--vis, the dependants, of, the deceased housewife/homemaker. Consequently, the computation, as, made by the learned Tribunal, vis--vis, the disabled hereat claimant, under the head "loss of earning and earning capacity", is in gross, and, stark transgression, vis--vis the apt ratio decidendi, borne in the judgment (iv) reiteratedly, when ratio decidendi, propounded therein, is squarely applicable, only, vis--vis, the dependants, of, the deceased housewife/homemaker. 4. Consequently, any determination made under the head "loss of earning and earning capacity" is set aside. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is modified to the extent above. Accordingly, the claimants, are, held entitled to a total compensation of 16,11,502/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from, the date of filing of petition till realization of awarded amount, in the following terms: (i) Pain and suffering Rs. 38,000/- (ii) Loss of enjoyment of life Rs. 10,00,000/- (iii) Medical expenses: Rs. 43,502/- (iv) Travelling expenses: Rs. 30,000/- (v) Special diet and attendant charges Rs. 5,00,000/- (vi) Total Rs. 16,11,502/- All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.