Judgment Ms. Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral):- C.M. No. 595-CII-2019 Reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 in the Court today istaken on record. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 117 daysin filing of the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly. F.A.O No. 160-2019 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants (forshort ‘the appellant’) against the award dated 18.04.2018 passed by thelearned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari (forshort, ‘the Tribunal’) whereby learned Tribunal has granted thecompensation to the appellants to the tune of Rs.6,10,000/-. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 2. On 24.02.2017, deceased Akhtari in the company of herhusband namely Asgar Ali were riding on auto cycle i.e Vicky bearingregistration No. HR-02-AD-0486.When they reached near Vishwakarmachownk on Radaur-Yamuna Nagar road, then a bus bearing registration No.HR-58-A-7351 of Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar being driven byrespondent No. 1 came in rash and negligent manner and hit the auto cycle.The occupants of the said auto cycle fell down and sustained grievousinjuries. Both were shifted to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar where Akhtariwas declared brought dead. F.I.R No. 69 dated 25.02.2017 u/ss279/337/304-A IPC was registered at P.S. Farakpur against respondent No.1. 3. The learned tribunal held that the deceased was 55 years oldand was a house wife doing the work of sewing, embroider and knitting.She was held to be earning Rs. 5000/- per month. The factum of accidenthad been proved and the offending vehicle was insured with respondentNo.3-Insurance Company. S. No. Heads Calculations (i) Income Rs. 5000/- per month (ii) Compensation after multiplier of 09 is applied Rs. 5000 x 12 x 9 = Rs. 5,40,000/- (iii) Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- (iv) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- (v) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs. 6,10,000/- 4. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends thatthe compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side anddeserves to the enhanced. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal haserred in law by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per monthonly. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent hasvehemently opposed the present appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused therecord. RE-ASSESSED COMPENSATION 7. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was fully insuredwith the Insurance company. 8. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent hasvehemently opposed the present appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused therecord. RE-ASSESSED COMPENSATION 7. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was fully insuredwith the Insurance company. 8. Reference at this stage can be made to a judgment of this Courtin a case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Sube Singh and others,passed in FAO No. 218-2014, decided on 15.01.2014 wherein this Courtwhile dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company against theaward of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal took the income of a house wifeat Rs.9000/- per month, held that to tag a house wife as skilled labour alonedoes not do complete justice to her multifarious role as home manager.House wife is something more than mere skilled worker and it would not bereasonable to estimate contribution of deceased at high figure. The SLPfiled against the said judgment has also been dismissed. 9. Further the children are also entitled for compensation ofRs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium, in view of judgmentof Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram : 2018 (4) RCR Civil837. 10. Reference at this stage can be made to a recent judgment ofHon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, passed in Spl Leave Petition(Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on October 31, 2017 wherein the issuewith regard to awarding of amount under the conventional heads has beenauthoritatively decided, while observing as under :- “54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/-loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.”. 11. Following the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgments, the compensation has to be reassessed as follows:- S. No. Heads Calculations (i) Income Rs. 9,000/- per month (ii) 10% of (i) above to be added as future prospects Rs. 9,000 + Rs. 900 = Rs. 9,900/- per month (iii) Compensation after multiplier of 09 is applied Rs. 9,900 x 12 x 9 = Rs. 10,69,200/- (iv) Conventional heads (Loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses) Rs. 70,000/- (v) Loss of consortium (children) Rs. 1,60,000 (Rs. 40,000/- each) (vi) Total Compensation awarded 12,99,200/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 12,99,200 - Rs. 6,10,000 Rs. 06,89,200/- (rounded off to Rs. 06,89,000/-) 12. 9,900 x 12 x 9 = Rs. 10,69,200/- (iv) Conventional heads (Loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses) Rs. 70,000/- (v) Loss of consortium (children) Rs. 1,60,000 (Rs. 40,000/- each) (vi) Total Compensation awarded 12,99,200/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 12,99,200 - Rs. 6,10,000 Rs. 06,89,200/- (rounded off to Rs. 06,89,000/-) 12. Resultantly, the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.06,89,000/- shall be payable within a period of forty five days from thedate of receipt of certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount ofcompensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition, till its realization, in view of judgment of Hon’ble theApex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4528-2019 titled as Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara vs. Shyam Singh Varma and ors, decided on 01.05.2019. Theremaining conditions of disbursal of amount and recovery rights shallremain unaltered. 13. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, theappeal is allowed to the above extent.