JUDGMENT : This appeal is submitted by the 2nd respondent in O.P. (M.V.).No.605 of 2010 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The said claim petition was submitted by the respondent herein, seeking compensation for the death of his wife due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 19.05.2010. 2. According to the claimant, the accident occurred when the car in which the deceased was travelling capsized due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent in the claim petition and due to the injuries sustained, she passed away. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of the accident and was a housewife. The compensation was claimed in such circumstances. 3. The appellant alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein they admitted the coverage of the policy but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also disputed. The said claim petition was tried along with three other claim petitions, which arose from the very same accident. 4. The evidence in these cases consists of oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A28. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car and being the insurer of the said vehicle, the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.11,82,400/-and the appellant was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is submitted challenging the quantum of compensation. 5. Heard Sri.George Cherian(Thiruvalla), learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.N.Santhosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. The primary contest in this case is regarding the quantum of compensation. The appellant contends that the amount is exorbitant, whereas the respondent would contend that the Tribunal awarded a reasonable amount. 7. I have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions raised by either side. The first aspect to be noticed is the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency. One of the crucial contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is about the deduction made by the Tribunal, which was 1/3. 7. I have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions raised by either side. The first aspect to be noticed is the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency. One of the crucial contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is about the deduction made by the Tribunal, which was 1/3. According to the learned counsel, 50% ought to have been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as she left behind only one dependent. The learned counsel also places reliance upon the observations made by the honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010 (2) KLT 802 ] and also a decision rendered by this Court in Sujatha P. v. M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited [ 2017 (4) KLT 899 ]. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant opposes the said contention by pointing out that, as far as a housewife is concerned, a deduction of 50% is unrealistic, as she is not likely to spend too much on herself so as to warrant such a deduction. Moreover, when considering the case of a housewife, the crucial aspect to be taken into account is that she is not actually earning any income, but the assessment of the monthly income is being made only to compute the compensation. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that, in Sarla Verma (supra), the specific issue as to the deduction to be made in the case of the death of a housewife towards personal expenses, was not considered at all. 8. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. Of course, it is true that, in Sarla Verma’s case, in paragraph 30, it was observed that when the deceased is married and the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, the deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd), it should be one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 9. 9. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant, the question of deduction to be made when the spouse, who was a housewife, dies, was not the specific issue considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra). As far as the deduction to be made in respect of the compensation for the death of a housewife is concerned, a different yardstick needs to be applied due to peculiar situations that may arise consequent to her death. The first aspect to be noticed is that, as far as the housewife is concerned, she may not be generating any income of her own, and she would be dependent on her husband and spending the amount earned by the husband. However, services rendered by her as a housewife to her husband are immeasurable and cannot be assessed in terms of money. Since in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation can only be granted in terms of money, we are compelled to assess the value of the services rendered by her for the sole purpose of determining the quantum of compensation. But, in fact, she does not generate any amount in practical terms; therefore, the question of spending for personal expenses from such income also does not arise. It is also to be noted in this regard that in a marital life, most of the expenses of spouses would be for common purposes, unlike in the case of a bachelor. As far as the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) are concerned, the deduction of 50% for the bachelor was made by taking note of certain peculiar aspects. One of the crucial aspects which took note of the Honourable Supreme Court was that, shortly, the bachelor would get married and will have his own family. On such occasion, he would spend more on his family, consisting of his wife and children, and at that juncture, the amount spent on his parents would come down drastically. However, as far as the case of a spouse is concerned, there is no scope for such a reduction in contribution to the other spouse. Moreover, in the case of a housewife, as observed above, there is no actual income generation at the instance of the wife. Therefore, the question of spending also does not arise. 10. However, as far as the case of a spouse is concerned, there is no scope for such a reduction in contribution to the other spouse. Moreover, in the case of a housewife, as observed above, there is no actual income generation at the instance of the wife. Therefore, the question of spending also does not arise. 10. Of course, it is true that in Sujatha P.V v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [ 2017 (5) KHC 568 ], this Court made a deduction of 50% in respect of the death of a spouse towards personal expenses. However, certain peculiar factual circumstances existed in that case. In the said decision, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the death of the husband. It was also found that the husband was a government servant, and after his death, the wife was getting a family pension. In that factual scenario, the deduction of 50% was ordered by this Court. However, since such a situation is not in existence in this case and the death, in this case, was that of the wife who was a non-earning member. Hence, a different yardstick has to be applied by deviating from the method that was adopted by this Court in Sujatha’s case (supra). 11. As observed above, since there is no actual income generation at the instance of a housewife, the question of spending more for her personal purpose does not arise. Therefore, when the husband is seeking compensation for the death of the wife, the quantum of compensation for the loss of dependency is to be calculated not on the actual loss of her income, but the said amount has to be calculated towards the compensation for the loss he suffered due to the deprivation of the pleasures, comforts, mental support, support in managing the affairs of the household etc., which he used to receive from his wife. Therefore, under no circumstances the yardstick of deduction of 50%, as adopted in the case of a bachelor, can be applied in the case of the death of a spouse, particularly when the deceased spouse was a housewife. In such cases, the proper deduction should be 1/3rd as it is the standard deduction contemplated under the statutory scheme provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. In such cases, the proper deduction should be 1/3rd as it is the standard deduction contemplated under the statutory scheme provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the deceased left behind only one dependent, the deduction should be 50%. 12. The other element that has to be taken into account is the monthly income taken by the Tribunal. It is to be noted that the Tribunal has taken the monthly income as Rs.7,000/-. The accident occurred in the year 2010. As per the method of computation evolved from the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.[ 2014 (2) SCC 735 ], even for an ordinary employee, the monthly income has to be fixed at Rs.4,500/-for the year 2004. Usually, an addition of Rs.500/-per year is being made to determine compensation for subsequent years. While adopting the said method, the monthly income of an ordinary worker, even if there is no evidence, can be fixed as Rs.7,500/-in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2010. Here, the monthly income taken by the Tribunal was only Rs.7,000/-. Even though the housewife was not an earning member, I do not find any justification for taking a lesser income than what is to be taken with respect to an ordinary employee, considering the valuable services of a housewife. Therefore, the monthly income in this case has to be fixed as Rs.7,500/-. As regards the addition to be made towards future prospects, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is to be accepted, as the proper addition should have been 25%, and in this case, an addition of 30% was made by the Tribunal. 13. When re-assessing the amount with these revised criteria, the compensation for dependency would come to Rs.9,75,000/-[(7500+25%) x 12 x 13 x 2/3]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.9,46,400/-. The additional compensation the claimant is entitled to is Rs.28,600/- under this head. 14. When moving on to the other heads, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is to be accepted as the amounts awarded under some of the heads are excessive. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.9,46,400/-. The additional compensation the claimant is entitled to is Rs.28,600/- under this head. 14. When moving on to the other heads, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is to be accepted as the amounts awarded under some of the heads are excessive. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. As per National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the proper amount is Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/-has to be deducted. Similarly, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-for loss of estate. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), the proper amount is 15,000/-. Therefore, Rs.85,000/-is to be deducted from the said amount. Concerning the loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/-is seen to have been granted by the Tribunal, whereas the actual amount payable was Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, an amount of Rs.60,000/-is to be deducted. 15. Thus, the award passed by the Tribunal is excess by Rs.1,26,400/-[(10000+85000+60000)-28600]. The total compensation receivable by the appellant is thus re-assessed as Rs.10,56,000/-[1182400-126400]. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, this appeal is allowed, and the award dated 07.03.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, is hereby modified by re-fixing the quantum of compensation as Rs.10,56,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs and fifty six thousand only) and the appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and with proportionate costs, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after adjusting the amounts already deposited.