JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. The appellant-injured lady has challenged the judgment and award dated 30.7.2019 passed by the MACT (Aux), Gondal in MACP no. 52 of 2013. 2. The appellant has raised a ground that the income has not been considered in accordance to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court to appreciate the duties of a housewife and further a ground has been raised that amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is not in accordance to the injuries and the disability sustained by the claimant. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi stated that the services rendered by the housewife has to be given a broad meaning and should be adequately compensated and her work should not be equated with that of a labourer, but should be placed on a higher pedestal since the service of a housewife develops a family which starts from the minor and other members who would be dependent on her household services. 4. While Mr. Mehta stated that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income aspect in accordance to the evidence, which had been led before the Court and therefore, stated that the amount as assessed for the monthly income is just and proper and further submitted that the appellant had failed to show any cogent evidence to claim any higher amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering. 5. In case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 218 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has elucidated the services rendered by a housewife/mother whose services are required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the personal care and attention given to the children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. 6. In Kirti and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2021) 2 SCC 166 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while observing the contribution of the house maker who add to the economic value to the household has observed that the law and the courts of land believe in the value of labour, services and sacrifices of a home maker. It has been observed in Paragraph 30 as under: “30. The issue of fixing notional income for a homemaker, therefore, serves extremely important functions. It has been observed in Paragraph 30 as under: “30. The issue of fixing notional income for a homemaker, therefore, serves extremely important functions. It is a recognition of the multitude of women who are engaged in this activity, whether by choice or as a result of social/cultural norms. It signals to society at large that the law and the Courts of the land believe in the value of the labour, services and sacrifices of homemakers. It is an acceptance of the idea that these activities contribute in a very real way to the economic condition of the family, and the economy of the nation, regardless of the fact that it may have been traditionally excluded from economic analyses. It is a reflection of changing attitudes and mindsets and of our international law obligations. And, most importantly, it is a step towards the constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity of life to all individuals.” 7. Further, it has been held that there can be no fix approach to the issue as to how notional income of a home maker is to be calculated and the said issue has to be understood by an attempt of the Court to fix an appropriate economic value for all the work that a home maker does and the Court must keep in mind the idea of awarding just compensation in such cases looking to the facts and circumstances. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment of Kirti (supra) has also dealt with the issue of granting future prospects even in cases pertaining to notional income and has extended the said principles to non-earning victims particularly with respect to home makers and further had summarized the said aspect to be taken into consideration for fixing the notional income of a home maker. Paragraph 41 of the said judgment reads as under: “41. 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: 41.1 Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law. 41.2 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. 41.3 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. 41.4 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. 41.5 The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation.” 8. The Tribunal had assessed Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the appellant. As per the deposition, she was doing work of preparing photocopies and making lamination and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. She at the time of accident was traveling with husband who was driving the car. At the time of the accident, she was 52 years old. The facts of the case suggest that on 24.5.2013, she was traveling in a Wagon R Car bearing registration no. GJ-03 DN-9438 driven by her husband - appellant no. 1. They were coming from Village Shishak to Gondal and when the car reached at Ghoghavadar Road, near Gokul Cement Products, Gondal, it is stated that the car was in full speed and because of rash and negligent driving, the front tyre of the car got blasted and the opponent no. 1 lost control over his car, which turned turtle and in the accident, the appellant sustained serious fractures and other bodily injures. She was taken to Orthopedic Hospital of Dr. Vadodaria, Gondal and thereafter, was referred to H.J. Doshi Hospital, Rajkot for medical treatment. 9. The claimant states that she has sustained 36% permanent partial disability and to support her case, she has produced disability certificate issued by Dr. Langaliya at Exh.21 and another disability certificate was also issued by Dr. Jayesh Odedara of Gokul Hospital, Rajkot. According to him, the claimant had suffered permanent partial disability of 20%. Dr. 9. The claimant states that she has sustained 36% permanent partial disability and to support her case, she has produced disability certificate issued by Dr. Langaliya at Exh.21 and another disability certificate was also issued by Dr. Jayesh Odedara of Gokul Hospital, Rajkot. According to him, the claimant had suffered permanent partial disability of 20%. Dr. Jayesh Odedara has issued certificate stating permanent partial neurological disability. Thus, it was urged to consider 56% permanent partial disability and both the parties hereby had agreed to consider as 23% and 15% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. Hence, on the consent of both the parties, 38% disability of the body as a whole was assessed by the Tribunal. Before this Court too, both the advocates agreed on the assessment of functional disability of 38%. 10. The income assessed by the learned Tribunal of Rs.3,000/- per month for housewife should be not on random basis, but by appreciating the gratuitous service of looking after the house, children and husband and over and above, it is also necessary to recognize the work, which she does outside her house to sustain the family development. Thus, taking into consideration the nature of housework and recognizing the work carried out outside the house the labour and sacrifices of a home maker and in confirmity with the age of the claimant, this Court considers that the reasonable amount to recognize the labour and sacrifice of the house maker, considering the year of the accident, income of Rs.5,000/- per month would be just and reasonable. Further, as the age of the claimant at the time of the accident was 52, 10% rise in income is also required to be assessed. Hence, the disability loss would be Rs.5,000/- + 10% rise in income = Rs.5,500/- X 38% X 12 X 11 and thus, the future loss would come to Rs.2,75,880/-. 11. The claimant has neurological loss as well as there is a physical disability, which has been considered as 36% and 20% respectively by the Doctors. The claimant, after the accident, was taken to the orthopedic hospital of Dr. Vadodaria at Gondal and thereafter, was also referred to H.J. Doshi Hospital, Rajkot. The claimant has suffered pain because of the accident and considering the neurological disability coupled with the physical disability, she must have suffered because of the accident. The claimant, after the accident, was taken to the orthopedic hospital of Dr. Vadodaria at Gondal and thereafter, was also referred to H.J. Doshi Hospital, Rajkot. The claimant has suffered pain because of the accident and considering the neurological disability coupled with the physical disability, she must have suffered because of the accident. Hence, the amount of Rs.35,000/- was granted towards pain, shock and suffering. The claimant’s medical bills and treatment charges is considered as Rs.83,000/-. Under the head of special diet, attendant and transportation, the Tribunal has granted Rs.5,000/-, which requires no modification. 12. Since the income has been considered at Rs.5,000/- per month and taking into consideration the disability and the injury sustained, she would not have been in a position to work and the learned Tribunal has considered actual loss for 3 months. Thus, accordingly, the actual loss of income would come to Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the computation of the compensation would be as under: Future loss of income Rs. 2,75,880/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 35,000/- Special diet, attendant and transportation Rs. 5,000/- Actual loss of income Rs. 15,000/- Medical bills Rs. 83,000/- Total compensation Rs. 4,13,880/- 13. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.2,67,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the appellant would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,46,380/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. 14. On depositing of the amount, 80% shall be disbursed to the appellant after proper verification and 20% of the amount be invested in a Fixed Deposit with any nationalized Bank for a period of three years and receipt of the same shall be kept in the custody of the Nazir of the concerned Tribunal. The appellant may approach the concerned Tribunal after 3 years and the Tribunal concerned shall disburse the amount to the appellant along with accumulated interest after proper verification. 15. The impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal, if received.