JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellantsclaimants against the judgment and award dtd. 5/3/2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim Case No.307/2002 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim filed by the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.3,35,000.00 to the claimants with interest @ 6% w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. A claim petition was filed by the claimants-appellants on account of death of Savita and unborn child in an accident which occurred on 15/2/2000. In the said accident, the deceased Savita and child in her womb also died. The Tribunal after framing the issue and evaluating the evidence brought on record decided the claim petition. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed findings recorded by the Tribunal of issue No.4. He submits that the deceased Savita was 30 years of age at the time of accident and she was pregnant and she was carrying pregnancy of child in her womb. He further submits that the deceased was running a beauty parlor and she was doing the work of unkeep of the house, maintenance of the daughter and cooking food for the family etc. Therefore, involvement of the deceased in each and every work of the house cannot be quantified in terms of money but at the same time deprivation of the same has huge impact on the entire family. To buttress his contention, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company & Ors. reported in 2010 MACD (SC) 223. 4. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the Tribunal committed an error in not calculating the amount of compensation in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157. He further submits that though loss of the deceased for the entire family cannot be quantified but for rough assessment of the compensation in the present case, the calculation may be done in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra). Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157. He further submits that though loss of the deceased for the entire family cannot be quantified but for rough assessment of the compensation in the present case, the calculation may be done in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra). It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that in the said accident unborn child of the appellant No.1 and the deceased Savita also died and in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sonia Giri Vs. Bhava Ram and Ors., decided on 14/10/2019 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1281/2010 the appellants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,50,000.00. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No.4 do not suffer from any infirmity as no documentary proof was submitted before the Tribunal showing annual income of the deceased and no documentary proof was submitted to prove the fact that the deceased was running a beauty parlor. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.3,35,000.00 in favour of the appellant-claimants. Therefore, he prays that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court and the same may be upheld. 6. I have considered the submissions made at bar and gone through the judgment dtd. 5/3/2012 passed by the Tribunal as also perused the relevant record of the case. 7. The factum of accident is not disputed in the present case, the factum of death of Savita and her unborn child is also not disputed, the age of the deceased being 30 years is admitted. The fact of dependency in the family is not disputed. In the humble opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding a compensation of Rs.3,35,000.00 only to the claimantappellants. The Tribunal has lost a site on the fact that the roll of women in the domestic life is un-parallel and as she is involved in almost each and every affair starting from upkeep of the house, maintenance of the children and cooking food etc. The Tribunal has lost a site on the fact that the roll of women in the domestic life is un-parallel and as she is involved in almost each and every affair starting from upkeep of the house, maintenance of the children and cooking food etc. The contribution of a lady who is a house keeper cannot be quantified, some methodology/modality should be taken into consideration for estimating the value of the services rendered by her for quantifying the compensation for the loss caused to the family. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and Ors. has held as under:- "10. In Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the housewife at Rs.5,000.00 per month, but without any rational or reasoning concluded that she was a nonearning member and reduced the same to Rs.2,500.00, which was affirmed by the High Court. Disapproving the same and restoring the assessed income, this Court observed at Paras 26 and 27 as follows: (SCC pp.237-38) "26. In India the courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular (5 of 6) [CMA-740/2007] hours. She takes care of all the requirements of the husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children. 27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/mother. 27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/mother. In that context, the term "services" is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti & Anr. "Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation which can be summarized as follows: a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law. b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all. c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation." 9. d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation." 9. That the Tribunal has further seriously erred in arriving at a finding that the claimants-appellants are not entitled to get any compensation for the unborn child by saying that the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kusma reported in 2011 MACD (MAC) 157 is not applicable in the instant matter because in that matter the death of the mother of the unborn child did not occur but the child died in the womb of the mother. The Tribunal has lost a site of the fact that the appellant No.1 being father and the appellant No.2 being sister of the unborn child has suffered mental agony on account of death of the unborn child in the motor accident. 10. In view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Sonia Giri Vs. Bhava Ram and Ors., the appellants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,50,000.00 on account of death of the child in the womb of the deceased Savita. 11. Thus, the compensation in the present case is required to be recomputed as under:- Date of accident : 8/3/2000. Deceased : Savita Age : 30 years Future Prospectus : 40% Monthly income : Rs.2,500.00 Yearly income : Rs.2,500.00 X 12 X 17 = Rs.5,10,000.00 After deducting personal expenses : 1/3rd = Rs.1,70,000.00 (Rs.3,40,000.00) On adding future prospects (40%) : Rs.1,36,000.00 (Rs.4,76,000.00) Conventional heads : Rs.55,000.00 Compensation for unborn child : Rs.2,50,000.00 Total award : Rs.7,81,000.00 Amount already awarded by the Tribunal : Rs.3,35,000.00 Enhanced amount : Rs.4,46,000.00 12. In view of the discussion made above, the appeal is disposed of and an amount of Rs.4,46,000.00 is enhanced in the present case, the enhance amount shall be paid by the respondent to the appellants-claimants within a period of three months from today. The said amount shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.