JUDGMENT : N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. A sad and cruel accident took away of the life of a lady(deceased) which was witnessed by her husband and son. On 07.08.2010 at about 7.30 p.m., when the first respondent's wife, namely, Pushpa was walking along with her husband and son in Veerapandi-Theni main road, at that time, a mini door van belonging to the third respondent insured with the appellant, driven rash and negligently, hit the lady causing her death. Therefore, a claim petition. On contest, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the mini door van and determined the compensation of Rs. 5,34,360/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The said award is being challenged before this Court by the Insurance Company. 2. Heard Mr. C. Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N. Mariappan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/Claimants. 3. Mr. C. Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal ordered "pay and recovery" in spite of proving the fact that the driver of the mini door van did not possess valid driving licence and therefore "pay and recovery" should not have been ordered. 4. On the other hand, Mr. N. Mariappan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants would submit that the amount awarded is too low. Therefore, it needs to be enhanced. 5. The case of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants before the Tribunal was that the deceased was aged about 22 years, working as coolie and earning about Rs. 6,000/- per month. At the time of the accident, the mini door van was driven rash and negligently and the deceased was knocked down by the vehicle causing death to her and therefore, they are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is contended by the appellant/Insurance Company that there was no valid driving licence possessed by the mini door van driver at the time of accident. The first respondent/husband who was present in the accident spot, deposed that the mini door van was driven by its driver rash and negligently and knocked down his wife and a First Information Report had been filed in Crime No. 532 of 2010 under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. Ex. The first respondent/husband who was present in the accident spot, deposed that the mini door van was driven by its driver rash and negligently and knocked down his wife and a First Information Report had been filed in Crime No. 532 of 2010 under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. Ex. P.4 charge sheet(final report) with regard to the accident was also filed against the driver of the mini door van. Based on P.W. 1's evidence and filing of the First Information Report and charge sheet against the driver of the mini door van, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini door van. 6. The appellant/Insurance Company further contended that there are no details regarding the driving licence of the driver in Ex. P.3 Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Since the mini door van is a goods carriage vehicle, it requires a driving licence with badge to be possessed by the driver whereas he does not have badge which is a violation of policy conditions. The appellant/Insurance Company examined R.W. 1, an official from R.T.O., office, Theni, to prove that as on 07.08.2010, the driver Easwaran did not possess the badge for the purpose of driving goods carriage. The Tribunal also categorically found that the vehicle was driven by its driver without badge which is a violation of policy conditions and rightly ordered "pay and recovery" as per the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC Page 542, in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Pune Vs. P. Manimozhi and others, which declares that where there is a violation of policy condition, pay and recovery has to be ordered. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the liability should be absolved and pay and recovery should not have been ordered, as the liability is to be rejected. 7. Usually this Court would not venture into decide the other issues, when the issue is not raised in the appeal. As the appeal arises out of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a benevolent legislation to set out the interest of the victims of the road traffic accident, while perusing the records, it is found that the Trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 5,34,360/- and determined the monthly income of Rs. 3,500/- is on the lower side. As the appeal arises out of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a benevolent legislation to set out the interest of the victims of the road traffic accident, while perusing the records, it is found that the Trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 5,34,360/- and determined the monthly income of Rs. 3,500/- is on the lower side. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq V. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 459 and the Judgment of this Court in C.M.A. No. 659 of 2015, dated 16.06.2015, in the case of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, Kancheepuram Region Vs. S. Dhanalakshmi and others, wherein, this Court determined the monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- for the victim in that case and added 50% towards future prospects and another Division Bench Judgment of this Court in M. Sengabagam and five others Vs. V. Vinod Kumar, reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 450, determined the monthly income of an Agricultural coolie who was also doing cattle business and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Whereas, Mr. C. Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the quantum is not the issue before this Court. Moreover, he referred to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal V. National Insurance Company, reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 129, wherein, for the death of a home maker, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- alone as monthly income was determined, being 1/3rd amount of the monthly income of the husband of the deceased, namely, Rs. 15,416/- as per Clause (6) of Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, he seeks to calculate the monthly income of the deceased at 1/3rd of the monthly income derived by the husband, namely, the first respondent herein. Clause (6) of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, reads as follows:- "6. Notional Income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident:- Fatal and disability in non-fatal accidents:- (a) Non-earning persons .... Rs. 15,000/- p.a. (b) Spouse .... 1/3rd of income of the earning surviving spouse. In case of other injuries only "General Damages" as applicable." The Motor Vehicles Act was enacted in the year 1988 and much water has flown under the bridge. Rs. 15,000/- p.a. (b) Spouse .... 1/3rd of income of the earning surviving spouse. In case of other injuries only "General Damages" as applicable." The Motor Vehicles Act was enacted in the year 1988 and much water has flown under the bridge. So far no substantial amendment has been made in the second schedule. The earning power, inflation and spending power which was prevalent before the enactment of the Act viz., 1988 was taken into consideration and the amounts were determined as per the values prevalent at that point of time. More than twenty five years have gone and the same determination has to be taken, it would do injustice to the victims. Every three or five years once, the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act should have been amended properly by the Parliament. However, unfortunately that has not been done India records highest number of road traffic accidents, globally in spite of having lesser number of vehicles than United States of America. The road rules are not followed properly and the people are not vigilant about the necessity to follow the rules in their own interest and interest of others. The road conditions are also one of the factors for numerable accidents. When such is the position, the roads have become death traps of our population. The policy makers should have taken steps to make appropriate amendments in Motor Vehicles Act which is unfortunately not done in our country and peoples' representatives have not bothered to raise the issue. 8. Moreover, Clause (6) of Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, speaks about 1/3rd income of the earning of surviving spouse. It is impossible to equate the earning of one surviving spouse with the other. It is recognized that a home maker is also equally doing household works as that of other spouse, who goes out and earns. By no stretch of imagination, the household work down by the home maker could be under estimated and it is succinctly and elaborately held by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Minor Deepika, represented by her guardian and next friend, Ranganathan, and others reported in 2009 (1) TN MAC Page 671, in paragraph Nos. By no stretch of imagination, the household work down by the home maker could be under estimated and it is succinctly and elaborately held by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Minor Deepika, represented by her guardian and next friend, Ranganathan, and others reported in 2009 (1) TN MAC Page 671, in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 are extracted as follows:- "The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act gives a value to the compensation payable in respect of those who had no income prior to the accident and for a spouse, it says that one-third of the income of the earning surviving spouse should be the value. Exploration on the internet shows that there have been efforts to understand the value of a homemaker's unpaid labour by different methods. One is, the Opportunity Cost which evaluates her wages by assessing what she would have earned had she not remained at home, viz., the Opportunity Lost. The second is, the Partnership Method which assumes that a marriage is an equal economic partnership and in this method, the homemaker's salary is valued at half her husband's salary. Yet another method is to evaluate home-making by determining how much it would cost to replace the homemaker with paid workers. This is called the Replacement Method. 11. The role of a housewife includes managing budgets, coordinating activities, balancing accounts, helping children with education, managing help at home, nursing care, etc. One formula that has been arrived at determines the value of the housewife as, Value of housewife = husband's income-wife's income + value of husband's household services, which means the wife's value will increase inversely proportionate to the extent of participation by the husband in the household duties. The Australian Family Property Law provides that while distributing properties in matrimonial matters, for instance, one has to factor in "the contribution made by a party to the marriage to the welfare of the family constituted by the parties to the marriage and any children of the marriage, including any contribution made in the capacity of a homemaker or parent." The Division Bench referred to various recommendations of the Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the said Judgment was also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court indirectly in Arun Kumar Agrawal V. National Insurance Company, reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 129. Even in the said Judgment, the monthly income of the deceased wife was taken as Rs. 5,000/-. Even though the said Judgment was given on 22.07.2010, the accident occurred much before that, whereas in this case, the accident occurred on 07.08.2010. Therefore, this Court has got enough hesitation to rely upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 450, in the case of M. Sengabagam V.V. Vinod Kumar, and determined the monthly income at Rs. 6,000/- per month. 9. Clause (6) of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, is not in consonance with the present day situation. Now a days, both spouses are working. In fact they are earning equally or even wives are earning more than their spouse in many cases and therefore, it is inappropriate or impossible to take 1/3rd of working spouse's income as the income of non working spouse. In Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (8) SCC 197 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized the role of home makers and in that case for the accident for home makers who died in the accident occurred in Jamshedpur, on 03.03.1989, the Hon'ble Supreme Court determined the monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-. Almost after twenty years, the accident occurred on 07.08.2010. Therefore, more amount should have been earned by the deceased. There is no co-relation between the income of one spouse with the other spouse and therefore, the said compensation of 1/3rd income of the working spouse itself is not correct. If this case is a Writ petition, this Court would have quashed or set aside the said Clause (6) of the Second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the issue is compensation, that exercise is not being done. 10. As the deceased was aged about twenty two years, she would have earned Rs. 6,000/- per month, even in the absence of any positive proof. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (1) TN MAC 1, in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kalpana and others, wherein Rs. 4,500/- was determined as monthly income of a lady who died in the accident in the year 1999. Therefore, this Court is justified in determining the income at Rs. 6,000/- of the deceased per month for a home maker or a coolie, if the income is not proved. 11. Smt. Kalpana and others, wherein Rs. 4,500/- was determined as monthly income of a lady who died in the accident in the year 1999. Therefore, this Court is justified in determining the income at Rs. 6,000/- of the deceased per month for a home maker or a coolie, if the income is not proved. 11. The next question comes up for consideration is whether the future prospects has to be included in the income of the deceased. The deceased was aged hardly twenty two years and every year, the wages are going up, as the cost of living is equally raising. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, reported in 2013 (3) CTC 883 , had categorically declared that even a self-employed or persons with fixed wages, 50% of the income should be added as future prospects. Paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the said Judgment are usefully extracted as follows:- "11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi V. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2012 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing Future Prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any, Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. 12. In Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. 12. In Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter." Considering the age of the deceased as twenty two years, this Court awards 50% towards future prospects. 12. 1/3rd is required to be deducted towards personal expenses, as the size of the family is two. After deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution is as follows:- 6,000 + 50%-1/3 = Rs. 6,000/-. 13. Multiplier to be adopted for the age of the deceased viz., 22 years is 18' and the same was rightly adopted by the Tribunal. The loss of income to the family of the deceased would be as follows :- 6,000 + 50%-1/3 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 12,96,000/- Only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium to the husband who was aged about twenty three years at the time of the accident. Loosing wife itself is very painful that too at the young age. Therefore, he is entitled to more award under the head of loss of consortium and accordingly, relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, reported in 2013 (3) CTC 883 , this Court awards Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. 14. The second respondent was aged two years who unfortunately witnessed his mother getting crushed down and dying in the accident and lost the love and affection and care of his mother throughout his life which cannot be compensated even by God. The mental agony and suffering caused by the gruesome accident taking away his mother's life would be troubling through out his life. Hence a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded to the second respondent minor claimant and a sum of Rs. The mental agony and suffering caused by the gruesome accident taking away his mother's life would be troubling through out his life. Hence a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded to the second respondent minor claimant and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to him for loss of love and affection enhancing Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15. No amount was awarded towards loss of estate and hence, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses is too low and is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- and similarly Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards transportation, as no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. 16. The deceased was carrying (pregnant) at the time of accident and foetus was six months old in the mother's womb. By one stroke, the accident took away the life of the mother and also the child in the mother's womb. Therefore, not only for the loss of mother, but also for the death of unborn child in the mother's womb, the respondents/claimants are to be compensated. The Tribunal was wrong in not awarding the compensation for the death of unborn child. It is not as if the child gets life only after his/her birth. Therefore, the foetus should be considered as a living person and the death caused by the accident, the respondents are entitled for compensation. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- is awarded towards the death of the unborn child, namely, the mother's womb. The award of Rs. 5,34,360/- is enhanced to Rs. 20,01,000/-; rounded off to Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only). The second minor is entitled to Rs. 12,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- has to be given to the first respondent/husband. 17. In the result, (i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of; (ii) The respondents 1 and 2/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. 17. In the result, (i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of; (ii) The respondents 1 and 2/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. (iii) The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to transfer the share of the first respondent/husband of the deceased in the award amount, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, as per the apportionment made by this Court, directly to his Personal Savings Bank Account Number, through RTGS/NEFT, after obtaining his Account Details by the officials of the appellant/Insurance Company, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment; (iv) Insofar as the share of the minor second respondent/son of the deceased is concerned, the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit his share amount, as per the apportionment made by this Court, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 22 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court, Theni, and thereafter, the Tribunal shall deposit the same in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit under a renewable scheme, till he attains majority; (v) The first respondent/father of the second respondent is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon once in two months for the welfare of the minor second respondent. (vi) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous petition is closed.