JUDGMENT : (J.C. Doshi, J.) Since both the First Appeals arises out of the same road accident, with the consent of learned advocates for the parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. By way of captioned Appeals, the appellants challenge Judgment and Award dated 09/01/2020 passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad, in M.A.C.P No. 597 of 2017 and 679 of 2017. 3. First Appeal No.2037 of 2020 is filed by the claimants – legal heirs of deceased Sangitaben for enhancement of compensation and First Appeal No.1802 of 2020 is filed by the appellant – insurance company to reduce the compensation. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 17/06/2017 at about 19:30 Hrs. while deceased was travelling on Motorcycle No. GJ- 07-CC-3597 as pillion rider along with their one year old son on lap and husband who was driving the motorcycle, when they reached the place of accident at that time driver of Maruti Echo Car No. GJ-01- KJ-5165 by driving his vehicle very rashly and negligently with full speed and came on his wrong side and dashed his vehicle with Motorcycle of deceased and accident occurred. In same accident grievous injuries sustained by deceased and Her Husband, her husband succumbed to same injuries on the spot of the accident and she succumbed to the same injuries in the hospital during the treatment on same night. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. RG Dwivedi for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for respondent No.2. 6. Learned advocate for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal has committed gross error in taking up income of deceased Sangitaben to Rs.4000/- much lower than the rate of minimum wage. He would further submit that though the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the income of deceased Sangitaben at the time of road accident, considering the fact that she was aged 21 years old at the time of road accident and has died in the road accident in the year 2017, the learned Tribunal at least was required to take up the rate of minimum wage for assessing her income on the date of road accident. He would further submit that the notional income assessed by the learned Tribunal of Rs.48000/- per year is by no means on lower side and therefore, he prays that by allowing this First Appeal, this Court may recalculate the compensation awardable to the claimants by taking up the rate of minimum wage as yardstick in the case on hand. According to the rate of minimum wage available in the year 2017, it was Rs.7946/-. 7. Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Dwivedi prays to recalculate the compensation by adopting Rs.7946/- per month as the income of deceased Sangitaben. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Nanavati would pray to maintain the impugned judgment and award on the argument that since the claimants have not produced any evidence of income, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken up Rs.4000/- as income of deceased Sangitaben being home maker. Therefore, upon such submission, he prays to dismiss the First Appeal No.2037 of 2020. 9. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and on perusal of the impugned judgment and award, I may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi Versus Kasam Daud Kumbhar. 2015 (4) SCC 237 , more particularly, para 11 and 12 thereof, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court recognized the contribution made by wife to the house branding the same as invaluable and held that it cannot be computed in terms of money. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Apex Court taking role of the deceased as home maker fixed her income to Rs.3000/- per month. Said paras read as under:- “11. Even assuming Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi was not self- employed doing embroidery and tailoring work, the fact remains that she was a housewife and a home maker. It is hard to monetize the domestic work done by a house-mother. The services of the mother/wife is available 24 hours and her duties are never fixed. Courts have recognized the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of money. A house-wife/homemaker does not work by the clock and she is in constant attendance of the family throughout and such services rendered by the home maker has to be necessarily kept in view while calculating the loss of dependency. A house-wife/homemaker does not work by the clock and she is in constant attendance of the family throughout and such services rendered by the home maker has to be necessarily kept in view while calculating the loss of dependency. Thus even otherwise, taking deceased Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi as the home maker, it is reasonable to fix her income at Rs.3,000/- per month. 12. Recognizing the services of the home maker and that domestic services have to be recognized in terms of money, in Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr. V. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.[2], this Court has held as under:- "The alternative to imputing money values is to measure the time taken to produce these services and compare these with the time that is taken to produce goods and services which are commercially viable. One has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered by women in the household sustain a supply of labour to the economy and keep human societies going by weaving the social fabric and keeping it in good repair. If we take these services for granted and do not attach any value to this, this may escalate the unforeseen costs in terms of deterioration of both human capabilities and social fabric. Household work performed by women throughout India is more than US $612.8 billion per year (Evangelical Social Action Forum and Health Bridge, p. 17). We often forget that the time spent by women in doing household work as homemakers is the time which they can devote to paid work or to their education. This lack of sensitiveness and recognition of their work mainly contributes to women's high rate of poverty and their consequential oppression in society, as well as various physical, social and psychological problems. The courts and tribunals should do well to factor these considerations in assessing compensation for housewives who are victims of road accidents and quantifying the amount in the name of fixing "just compensation". 10. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Arvind Kumar Pandey Versus Girish Pandey, 2024 (0) ACJ 567 , reiterated the principle laid down in the case of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi (supra), in para 8, it has been held following:- “8. It goes without saying that the role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family. It goes without saying that the role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family. The activities performed by a home-maker, if counted one by one, there will hardly be any doubt that the contribution of a home-maker is of a high order and invaluable. In fact, it is difficult to assess such a contribution in monetary terms.” 11. In view of above decision, consideration of home maker stand on the higher pedestrian than earning of the unskilled person. Though, it is difficult to assess for the contribution in monthly premises, yet to grant compensation, the Court needs to take all attending circumstances. Considering the year of the accident and the age of the deceased, according to this Court, the income of the deceased could not be less than Rs.8000/- per month and therefore, the compensation is required to be recalculated under different heads keeping in mind the fact that the learned Tribunal has taken up the income criteria on the lower side and assessed the compensation. Even, the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for the loss of consortium. The claimant No.1 minor Harsh has lost his parents in the road accident and therefore, he was entitled to compensation for parental consortium. The learned Tribunal did not grant the same. In all, the compensation grantable being just and fair, required to be reworked as under:- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Future Loss of Income 16,12,872/- (Rs.8000/- p.a. x 40% = Rs.11,200/- - 3733 (less towards personal exp.) = Rs.7467 x 12 x 18 multiplier Loss of Estate 18,150/- Funeral expenses 18,150/- Parental Consortium Rs.48,400/- Total… 16,97,572/- Awarded by the Tribunal 8,36,400/- Additional amount which is awarded 8,61,172/- 12. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount Rs.8,61,172/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of claim petition till its realization before the concerned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. 13. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. 13. As far as first appeal No. 1802 of 2020 is concerned, this appeal is filed by the insurance company only on the ground that the tribunal has adopted the income of the deceased on higher side. It is argued by learned advocate Mr. Nanavati that though the claimants have led oral evidence to establish the income of the deceased, yet, such oral evidence has not been supported by any cogent document evidence. He submits that the claimants have attempted to prove that the deceased was working in Siddharth Engineering at monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- and also led evidence at Exh.25 by furnishing salary certificate, but looking to the fact that except salary certificate, the claimants have not produced any other document which supports such salary certificate, in that way, the tribunal has adopted Rs.10,000 per month as income of the deceased. Upon such submission, he prays to allow the first appeal, by reducing the compensation. 14. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Dwivedi would submit that there are three claimants; claimant No.1 is the minor son of the deceased and claimant No..2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. The tribunal did not grant compensation for loss of consortium. Even granting of compensation under funeral charges and loss of estate are also on the lower side. He would further submit that though the claimants have not filed cross objection in the appeal, under the concept of just and fair compensation, as well as in view of the judgement of the Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate Versus Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav [ 2021 (16) SCC 467 ], this court may recalculate and modify the impugned judgement and by granting on higher side. The compensation granted by the tribunal is as under:- Future loss of income Rs.20,16,000 Funeral Charges Rs. 15,000 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000 Total Rs.20,46,000 15. The compensation granted by the tribunal is as under:- Future loss of income Rs.20,16,000 Funeral Charges Rs. 15,000 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000 Total Rs.20,46,000 15. At the outset, to appreciate rival contentions made by both the parties, I may reproduce para 16 of the impugned judgement and award, whereby the learned tribunal has assessed the reason to take income of the deceased to Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. “[16] Income: It is stated by claimant No.1 in his deposition at Exh.20 that at the time of accident deceased was earning Rs.20,000/ per month out of which Rs.5,000/ from agricultural work and Rs.15,000/ from Salary of Siddharth Engineering. However, claimants have not produced evidence showing income of the deceased at the time of accident except Exh.26 which is certificate issued on letter pad of Siddharth Engineering in which the monthly salary of deceased stated Rs.15,000/ and the witness deposed at Exh.25 who has furnished above salary certificate admitted in his cross examination that he has no any evidence except the above letter pad to show that he has paid monthly salary of Rs.15,000/ to the deceased. It is submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the opponent insurance company that as the definite and regular monthly income of the deceased is not established, the claimants are not entitled to compensation under this head. However, merely because no documentary or other proof suggesting the regular and definite income is produced, no immediate inference can be drawn that deceased had no income. Thus, considering the admission made by the claimant no.1 in his crossexamination, the age of deceased, able body concept and industry in which deceased was engrossed and experience and the fact that the accident in question has occurred in the year of 2017, it will be proper to asses the total monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/ per month. And accordingly the yearly income of the claimant comes to Rs.1,20,000/. Further, considering the fact that the deceased was selfemployed and young having age of 25 years and it will be just to increase income up to 40% for prospective rise as per the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Hence, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,68,000/.” 16. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Hence, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,68,000/.” 16. Noticeably, the claimants have produced salary certificate at Exh.26 to prove that the deceased had monthly income of Rs.15,000/-, but besides, no other documentary evidence are produced on record to believe that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The tribunal after discussing the evidence and by guess work, came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.1,20,000/- yearly. However, for putting such guess work, the tribunal has not given any reason. 17. Since the deceased serving in Siddhartha engineering is undisputed fact and the owner of Siddharth Engineering has also issued salary certificate and besides that the deceased was doing agricultural work, according to this court, the tribunal could have taken up the figure near to more than the rate of minimum wage available at the time of road accident. Considering the fact that rate of minimum wage at the relevant time was Rs.7698/- per month, the income of the deceased could be taken up to Rs.9000/- per month. Moreover, noticeably, the tribunal failed to grant compensation for loss of future prospect, to all three claimants. Therefore, compensation is also required to be given for loss of consortium and the compensation granted under the head of funeral charges, loss of estate deserves to be modified in view of the judgement of Pranay Sethi (supra). 18. Hence the compensation which can be granted to the claimants are reworked out as under:- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Future Loss of Income 18,14,400/- (Rs.9000/- p.a. x 40% = Rs.12,600/- (-) 1/3 ) = Rs.8400 x 12 x 18 multiplier Loss of Estate 18,150/- Funeral expenses 18,150/- Loss of Consortium Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400/- x 3) Total 19,95,900/- Awarded by the Tribunal 20,46,000/- Refunded to the appellant – insurance company 50,100/- 19. Since the insurance company has deposited entire decretal amount of Rs.20,46,000/- along with accrued interest thereon, after deducting just and fair compensation as aforesaid along with accrued interest thereon, the learned Tribunal is directed to refund the amount Rs.50,100/- with accrued interest to the appellant - insurance company forthwith. If any amount is paid excess than the amount granted by this Court to the claimant, it shall not be recovered from the claimant. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. If any amount is paid excess than the amount granted by this Court to the claimant, it shall not be recovered from the claimant. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. R & P be sent back.