JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (afterwards referred as ‘Act of 1988’) arise out of the judgment and award dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (afterwards referred as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.06/2017, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,97,175/-as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 20.12.2016. 2. By filing S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 978/2022 the appellant Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as “First Appellant”) has questioned the quantum of compensation as well as the conclusion of the learned Tribunal holding the driver of the questioned vehicle negligent. 3. It is contended in the appeal that the driver of the Tempo was negligent in the said accident but the learned Tribunal did not consider that aspect. Further, the fact of negligence by the driver of the questioned vehicle also remained unproved. 4. It is also asserted that the testimony of the claimant does not indicate that due to injuries sustained, there was any loss of earning capacity, hence adopting the multiplier system is erroneous. 5. It is also contended that the assessment of the income at Rs.7,000/-per month without any documentary evidence by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the prevalent minimum wages applicable. 6. Further, the disability shown in the certificate is 70%, whereas, learned Tribunal assessed the same to the extent of 80%. Therefore, the impugned award may be quashed and consequently, the claim petition filed by the claimant be dismissed. 7. Appellant Smt. Nageena (hereinafter to be referred to as “claimant”) by filing S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1261/2022 has prayed for the enhancement of the claim. 8. It is contended that assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/-per month is contrary to the evidence and the learned Tribunal ought to have computed the claimant's income at Rs.10,000/-per month. It is also asserted that the learned Tribunal did not consider that claimant has sustained 100% permanent disability as her one leg was amputated, therefore, the award of the learned Tribunal assessing 80% permanent disability deserves to be enhanced. 9. It is also asserted that the learned Tribunal did not consider that claimant has sustained 100% permanent disability as her one leg was amputated, therefore, the award of the learned Tribunal assessing 80% permanent disability deserves to be enhanced. 9. Further in the appeal claimant is dissatisfied with the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering, loss of estate and the rate of interest imposed upon the Insurance Company. 10. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.18,97,175/-, the break up of which is as under:- Loss of future earnings Rs.15,99,360/- Future treatment expenses Rs. 2,00,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 32,815/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs.18,97,175/- 11. Learned Tribunal also awarded simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim on the above amount. 12. Heard the counsel of the appellant as well as the claimant and perused the material available on record. On the fact of negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle:- 13. The claimant injured AW-1 Smt. Nageena in her deposition before the learned Tribunal has categorically stated that the driver of the offending Scorpio hit the Tempo from the wrong side resulting in capsizing of the Tempo and she sustained serious injuries on her legs. In her cross-examination, she denied that the accident occurred in mid of the road. She also denied that at the time of the accident, the Tempo suddenly moved from the side lane to the main road and the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Tempo. 14. AW-2 Roshan, husband of the claimant, also corroborates the version of AW-1 Smt. Nageena. In his deposition, he categorically stated that the offending Scorpio hit the Tempo resulting in its capsizing and her wife sustained serious injuries on her legs. In cross-examination, he denied that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Tempo. He further refuted that the Tempo suddenly turned to the main road from the side lane. 15. The fact of careless driving by the driver of the offending vehicle also gets validated by the thorough investigation conducted by the Police. In cross-examination, he denied that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Tempo. He further refuted that the Tempo suddenly turned to the main road from the side lane. 15. The fact of careless driving by the driver of the offending vehicle also gets validated by the thorough investigation conducted by the Police. The papers annexed with the charge-sheet, produced against the driver itself are sufficient to draw the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in turtling of the tempo which caused serious injuries to the claimant. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the Tempo and not due to the rashness of the driver of the offending vehicle is not sustainable and the finding arrived by the learned Tribunal is affirmed. Assessment of Claimant income:- 16. The fact that the claimant sustained serious injuries on her legs resulting in the amputation of the left leg below the knee is undisputed. The medical board certified the permanent disability of the claimant to 70% of the entire body. 17. Admittedly claimant did not produce any documentary evidence supporting the per month income at Rs.10,000/-. 18. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the guidelines laid down in Kirti & Anr. Etc. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. : Civil Appeal No.1920 of 2021 (arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) Nos.1872829 of 2018) assessed the income of the claimant considering her housewife at Rs.7,000/- per month. 19. The guidelines itemized in the above judgment for computing the income of the housemaker are as under:- “26. 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. 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.” 20. In my view, the finding of the learned Tribunal is well-reasoned and gets support by the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the matter of Rajendra Singh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. : 2020 SCC Online SC 521 and the latest guidelines issued in Kirti's matter (supra). The services rendered by the housemaker are invaluable and unquantifiable. Therefore, the assessment of the claimant's income at Rs.7,000/-per month while computing the loss of future earnings by applying the multiplier and further assessing the permanent disability to 80% does not seem to be erroneous. 21. As far as the claimant's appeal for enhancing the compensation is concerned, I do not find any illegality in the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal with respect to the income assessed and computing the loss of future earnings and further assessing the permanent disability to the extent of 80% of the entire body. 22. In my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has taken into all the requisite considerations while computing the compensation for each head and the finding of the learned Tribunal does not require any alteration or modification. 23. Corollary to the above, both the appeals against the impugned award dated 22.03.2022 are dismissed. The record of the learned Tribunal is sent forthwith with the directions to the Tribunal to disburse the awarded amount in terms of the award accordingly.