JUDGMENT : Abhay Chaturvedi, J. 1. Instant appeal for enhancement of compensation amount has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the award dated 01.06.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No. 174/1998, whereby, the learned Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition of the claimants, granted compensation in the tune of Rs. 1,45,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its recovery. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant No. 3- Paramjet Kaur, appellant No. 6 Bhola Singh and appellant No. 7- Tarsam Singh accompanied with Sukh Chain Singh and the deceased Balbeer Kaur were going from Palewali Dhani to Village Ghunduwala in a Jeep bearing registration No. 3369. The said jeep was being driven by Lekhram, who was also the owner of the said jeep. When the said jeep reached near Lalgarh Cantt, suddenly the respondent no. 2-Amar Chand, the driver of the another jeep bearing registration No. 6368 who was coming from the opposite direction, while driving the said jeep rashly and negligently, collided with the jeep No. 3369 resulting that Balbeer Kaur fell down and sustained head injury. She was escorted to hospital but she died on the way. A case was registered against Amar Chand, the owner and driver of the Jeep bearing registration No. 6368, wherein Police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against him. 3. Jagrup Singh, the husband of deceased Smt. Balbeer Kaur, his sons and daughters filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver-cum-owner of the truck involved in the accident as well as the insurer of the jeep were impleaded as non-claimants to the claim petition. A total compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/- was claimed under various heads. 4. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply alleging therein that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 3. Though, the respondent No. 3 in his reply admitted that deceased Balbeer Kaur was sitting in his jeep, but it was stated by him that the jeep was in his control and the said accident did not take place due to his negligence. Though, the respondent No. 3 in his reply admitted that deceased Balbeer Kaur was sitting in his jeep, but it was stated by him that the jeep was in his control and the said accident did not take place due to his negligence. The respondent No. 4 - National Insurance Company also filed the reply alleging that at the time of accident, the said jeep was being used as Taxi and the drivers of both the jeeps were not having valid driving licenses. 5. On the strength of pleadings of rival parties, the Tribunal framed four issues which reads as under: "1. Whether on 1.9.97 at 11 O'clock non-applicant No. 1 while driving the Jeep bearing registration No. RNQ 6368 rashly and negligently collided with Jeep No. RNC - 3369, as a result of which, Balveer Kaur, who was sitting in the Jeep, succumbed to injuries and on account of which she died? 2. Whether, claimants are entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs. 10,50,000/- as claimed in the claim petition? 3. Whether, as per Para No. 29 and 30 of the reply of the non-applicant No. 4, the claim petition is liable to be rejected? 4. Relief." 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal heard the arguments and decided the Issue No. 1, relating to 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. 15,000/- per annum and by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and by applying multiplier of 13, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/-. 7. That apart, under other head, appellants were awarded Rs. 14,000/- for loss of love and affection of wife of the appellant No. 1 and mother of the appellant Nos. 2 to 7. The total amount of compensation was, thus, determined to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 01.06.2000 passed by the Tribunal, the appellants claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act for enhancement of the compensation. 8. Mr. 2 to 7. The total amount of compensation was, thus, determined to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 01.06.2000 passed by the Tribunal, the appellants claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act for enhancement of the compensation. 8. Mr. G.R. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence and material 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. 3,000/-. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error while applying the multiplier of 13 and assuming the total income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/-. It is further stated that the findings of the Tribunal on the Issue No. 2 is erroneous and enhancement is called for in the compensation awarded by the tribunal. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court: 1. Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3426. 2. Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi & Ors. Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar & ors. reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 237. 3. Lata Wadhwa & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3218. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the accident occurred in the year 1997. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal, after examining the entire facts scenario, awarded a reasonable amount of compensation under different heads. The Tribunal on the basis of the statements recorded rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that neither of the claimants viz. the deceased's husband, sons and the daughters of the deceased were dependent upon the deceased, who was not having any regular source of income. The judgment passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and judgment and scanned the entire record of the case. 11. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was a housewife having no regular source of income. The judgment passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and judgment and scanned the entire record of the case. 11. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was a housewife having no regular source of income. Although it is alleged in the claim petition that the deceased used to do agriculture and weaving work but the learned Tribunal has specifically observed that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month by way of weaving and agriculture work. 12. As far as the income of the non-earning housewife/mother is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. National Insurance Co. & Ors reported in 2011 R.A.R. 24 (SC) 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 dependents 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. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 21. 13. Hon'ble the Supreme Court Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and other reported in AIR 2001 SC 3218 while determining the income of the house wife in para 10 observed as under: "10. 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. 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 datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas 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 re-calculated, 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 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 re-determined, 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." 14. Similarly, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi & Ors. Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 237 while following the judgment in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra), held in para 10 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. 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 house-wife/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." 15. In the case in hand, while considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- which comes to Rs. 36,000/- per annum and after making one third deduction against personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family is assessed to Rs. 24,000/-. 16. As regard multiplier, at the time of accident, the age of the deceased Balveer Kaur was 50 years, thus, the multiplier of 13 has rightly been applied by the learned Tribunal in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 21. 17. In view of the aforesaid, by taking Rs. 3,000/- as deceased's monthly income, her yearly income comes to Rs. 36,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs. 24,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 13 as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 50, it comes to a sum of Rs. 24,000 x 13 = Rs. 3,12,000. By adding a sum of Rs. 35,000/- by way of lump sum compensation towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and estate, the total compensation comes to Rs. 3,47,000/- (Rs. 3,12,000/- + Rs. 35,000). 18. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 01.06.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No. 174/1998 is modified. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs. 1,44,000/- to Rs. 3,47,000/- (Rs. 3,12,000/- + Rs. 35,000). 18. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 01.06.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No. 174/1998 is modified. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs. 1,44,000/- to Rs. 3,47,000/- and the appellants are declared entitled for enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,03,000/- as indicated in the foregoing para. The enhanced amount of Rs. 2,03,000/- would carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till realization. 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 a certified copy of the judgment. 19. The learned Tribunal shall be at discretion to disburse the awarded amount in appropriate proportions of cash and fixed deposits in its wisdom looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.