JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, where through, it, casts, a, challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, H.P., upon, MAC Petition No. 65-R/2 of 2016/2015, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.9,33,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 9% per annum, and, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein. 2. The learned counsel appearing or the appellant/insurer, (i) does not contest, the validity of affirmative findings, rendered by the learned tribunal, upon, the issue, appertaining to the relevant accident, being, a, sequel of rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving of the offending vehicle, by Varun Sharma, respondent No.3 herein, (ii) nor he contests, the, validity of dis-affirmative findings, returned, upon the issue appertaining, to, any of the apposite terms, and, conditions of the contract, of insurance being, hence, breached by the owner-cum-driver, of the offending vehicle. His trite onslaught, vis-a-vis, the impugned award is centered, upon, despite the learned tribunal concerned, returning a valid conclusion, qua, the deceased not earning, any, per mensem sum of Rs.25,000/-, from, hers hitherto performing various avocations, (a) given no apt therewith cogent evidence existing on record, (b) hence, he proceeds to contend that the computation, vis-a-vis, the monetary value of services, as, rendered by the deceased, towards her performing, the, apt household chores, and, pegged in a sum of Rs.6,000/- per mensem, rather warranting interference. He also contends, that, (c) meteing of 15 % hike thereon, is, also stained with an alike infirmity, and, also warrants hence interference by this Court. 3. He also contends, that, (c) meteing of 15 % hike thereon, is, also stained with an alike infirmity, and, also warrants hence interference by this Court. 3. However, the afore contention, reared before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, is, ridden with a gross inherent fallacy, (a) given the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment pronounced, in a case titled as Jitendra Khimshankar Trivdi and others vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 237 , the relevant paragraph No.10 whereof stand extracted hereinafter, expostulating a clear proposition of law (a) qua even when the deceased housewife, and, a homemaker is not proven, to rear any income, from any of her pleaded sources, or avocations, (b) yet the monetary value of her contribution, as a housewife, and, as a homemaker, vis-a-vis her family, being not ignorable, nor discardable, and, its proceeding, to monetize the services or domestic chores, performed by a housewife, and, by a homemaker, rather in a sum of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. The relevant paragraph No.10, of, Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi's case (supra) reads as under:- “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 home maker. 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/ home-maker does not work by the clock and she is in constant attendance of the family throughout and such services rendered by the home maker has to be necessarily kept in view while calculating the loss of dependency. Thus even otherwise, taking deceased Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi as the home maker, it is reasonable to fix her income at Rs.3,000/- per month.” (p.241-142) 4. Even though, the learned Tribunal concerned, in the year 2017, proceeded to assess, the, monetary value(s) of the services performed, by the deceased, as a housewife, and, as a home-maker, qua her estate/home, hence in a sum of Rs.6000/- per mensem. Even though, the learned Tribunal concerned, in the year 2017, proceeded to assess, the, monetary value(s) of the services performed, by the deceased, as a housewife, and, as a home-maker, qua her estate/home, hence in a sum of Rs.6000/- per mensem. However, the aforesaid monetization, of, domestic services, hence, performed by the deceased at her home, and, vis-a-vis, her estate, may not be construable to be either excessive or exorbitant, nor it can be construed, to fall, beyond the parameters, of the apt paragraphs of the verdict, of, the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in Jitendera Khimshankar's case (supra), (a) conspicuously when the afore verdict, is, pronounced in the year 2015, whereas, the impugned award is rather pronounced in the year 2017, (b) hence, with some time elapsing inter se the pronouncement, made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jitendra Khimshankar's case (supra), vis-a-vis, the pronouncement, of, the impugned award, (c) and, obviously since then upto now, the monetary value of the services rendered by the deceased, as a home-maker or as a housewife, vis-a-vis, her estate or her home, has obviously incurred apt accretions, (d) hence, the learned tribunal, in, monetizing rather her apt contribution towards her estate or home, in a sum of Rs.6000/- per mensem, rather cannot be construed, to, wander astray, from, the domain of the verdict supra, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. The learned counsel, appearing for the insurer has contended, that, the, meteing of 15% hikes, vis-a-vis, the afore sum also meriting interference, (a) given it being beyond the domain of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 . The afore contention of the learned counsel has strength, given the Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore verdict mandating qua rather it being permissible for meteing of 10% hikes, vis-a-vis, the deceased, who was self employed or on a fixed salary, and, was between the age of 50 to 60 years. Since the postmortem report reflects, the deceased being aged 52 years, at the relevant time, hence with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court, encapsulated in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), mandating, qua accretions towards future incremental prospects, visa- vis, the per mensem income of the deceased, being pegged, upto 10% thereof, besides being tenably meteable, vis-a-vis, the apposite per mensem income. Consequently, after meteing 10% increase(s) vis-a-vis the apposite per mensem income, thereupon, the relevant per mensem income, of, the deceased, is, recoknable to be Rs.6,600/-, [Rs.6000/-(per mensem income of the deceased)+Rs.6002/-(10% of the per mensem income). Significantly, the number of dependents, of, the deceased, are, two, hence, 1/3rd deduction is to be visited, upon, a sum of Rs.6600/-. Consequently, the per mensem dependency, including the future hikes towards future prospects, after meteing the afore 1/3rd deduction, is, worked out, now at Rs.6600/- –Rs.2,200/- = Rs.4,400/-. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs.4,400/-x12= Rs.52,800/-. After applying the apposite multiplier of 11, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.5,80,800/- (Rs. Five lakhs, eighty thousand and eight hundred only). 6. However, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs.1 lacs each, vis-a-vis, the claimants, (i) under the head, “loss of love and affection”, (ii) and. quantification, of compensation, borne in a sum of Rs. 1 lac, vis-a-vis, claimants under the head, “loss of estate”, and also funeral expenses borne in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, is (a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), (b) wherein, it has been expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, and, funeral expenses being quantified only upto Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, and Rs.15,000/- respectively, (iii) and, with no expostulation occurring therein vis-a-vis the compensation amount(s), being awardable, to the off springs of the deceased, especially under the head, loss of love and affection, hence reliefs in respect thereto being impermissibly granted. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is also interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-a-vis, claimants. Accordingly, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,80,800/-, the claimants, are, entitled under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled comes to Rs.5,80,800/-+15,000/- +40,000/- 15,000/-= Rs.6, 50,800/-(Rs. Six lakhs, fifty thousand and eight hundred only). 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Six lakhs, fifty thousand and eight hundred only). 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimants/petitioners, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,50,800/--, along with pending and future interest @9 % per annum, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. Compensation amount be apportioned, amongst the claimants in the ratio of 50:50. The share of the minor claimant/petitioner No.2 shall remain invested, in FDRs, upto, the stage of his attaining majority. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.