JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal, is, directed against the award of 12.7.2017, pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. in Claim Petition No. 26/2 of 2016, whereunder an apt indemnificatory liability stands fastened, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle/ appellant herein, to, pay compensation amount constituted in a sum of Rs. 8,36,200/ alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, visavis, the claimants''/ respondents No. 1 to 4 herein. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, does not contest, the affirmative findings returned upon the issue appertaining, to, the relevant mishap being caused by the rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving, of, the offending vehicle, by its driver. However, the learned counsel for the appellant, has, contended that with the driver of the offending vehicle, being at the relevant time hence inebriated, whereupon the apt breaches, of, terms and conditions of the insurance policy rather evidently surfaced, whereupon, the, fastening of an apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer rather being inapt . However, the aforesaid contention is rudderless, given this Court in a decision rendered in a case titled as Khem Chand vs. Smt. Uma Devi & Ors , (2010) 1 LatestHLJ 1 (HP), mandating, qua the inebriated condition, of, the driver of the offending vehicle, especially, at the relevant time, being statutorily unespousable, by, the Insurance company, as, an apt exculpatory ground. 3. The learned counsel for the insurer, has contended, (i) that the learned Tribunal while computing the per mensem salary of the deceased in a sum of Rs. 6,000/, has rather apparently hence wandered astray, from, the apt evidence existing on record, wherein the aforesaid factum, remains undisclosed, besides unechoed by the claimants/witnesses concerned. Even though, the aforesaid submission has immense vigor, however in the larger interest of justice, and, for ensuring determination, of, just, fair and adequate compensation, this Court proceeds to place reliance, upon, a decision rendered by the learned Apex Court in 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, (i) has therein, visvis, the dependents of the deceased, home makers'' concerned, visibly also hereat, hence, computed the apt pecuniary computation, to stand borne in a sum of Rs. 3000/, conspicuously, workable visvis, her contribution towards, the, apt estate (i) and, upon her demise, with loss, hence befalling upon her dependents, thereupon, the latter being enjoined to be monetarily recompensed. Apparently, any purported succor, as, drawn therefrom, is, visibly workable only, upon, demise, of, a housewife, and, is reiteratedly hence hereat patently workable, qua, her dependants/claimants. Consequently, in consonance therewith, the, computation of Rs. 6000/ as per mensem income, of the deceased, is, modified to, a, sum of Rs. 3,000/ per mensem, and, is assessed,towards, her contribution visavis her estate, and, is enjoined to be assessable, upon, her dependents''. Further more, the hikes and accretions worked against future prospectus, visavis, the aforesaid figure of per mensem purported income, of, the deceased is rather enjoined to be invalidated given (a) it not being her per mensem income, whereupon alone, the apt hikes are enjoined to be meted. "10. Even assuming Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi was not selfemployed 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 services 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 6263) "62, The alternative to imputing money values is to measure 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/". 4. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is modified to the extent above. In order to award just and reasonable compensation, the, income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 3000/ per mensem. Deducting 1/3rd therefrom towards her personal expenses hence the contribution of the deceased towards her family, is calculated at Rs. 2000/ per mensem. At the time of her death the deceased was aged 48 years, hence thereon the proper multiplier, to be adopted, is 13. Adopting, the multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency, is calculated at Rs. 2000 x 12 x 13 = 3,12,000/. In addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,12,000// claimants, are, nowat also entitled, under, conventional head, namely, funeral expenses and loss of estate, in a sum of Rs. 25,000/, and, Rs. 15,000/ respectively and, as such, the total compensation whereto the claimants are entitled, comes to 3,12,000+25,000+15,000= Rs. 3,52,000/ 5. Accordingly, the appeal is modified to the extent above. Accordingly the claimants, are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/, and, Rs. 15,000/ respectively and, as such, the total compensation whereto the claimants are entitled, comes to 3,12,000+25,000+15,000= Rs. 3,52,000/ 5. Accordingly, the appeal is modified to the extent above. Accordingly the claimants, are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 3,52,000/ alonwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of petition till realization of awarded amount. Compensation amount be apportioned amongst the claimants in the hereinafter extracted manner: Claimant No.1 25% Claimant No.2 25% Claimant No.3 25% Claimant No.4 25% 6. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted against the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.