JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award of compensation passed in M.A. Claim Case No.32 of 2018 dated 30 th May, 2022 by learned District Judge-V-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Giridih whereby he has been pleased to award a sum of Rs.5,08,000/- with interest of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim case. 3. Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that this appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the awarded amount as lesser amount has been awarded. He submits that the learned Court has not considered the income of the deceased, who was the housewife in its right perspective. He submits that in view of the case of Kirti and Another versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166 the housewife is entitled at least for minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident in the State of Jharkhand. He further submits that on future prospect also the lesser amount has been awarded. On this ground, he submits that the said award may kindly be modified. 4. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company opposes the prayer and submits that nothing has been proved before the learned Court about the income of the deceased and in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the said award and there is no illegality in the award. 5. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle, in question submits that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and in view of that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the order to pay the compensation by the insurance company. 6. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, who is the driver, submits that in driving the vehicle there is no fault and the vehicle was being driven cautiously, however, the accident took place and in view of that there is no illegality in the impugned award. 7. It transpires from the record that the case was instituted by the claimants alleging that on 23.11.2017 the deceased Ranju Devi was on the way to Dhanwar with her brother-in-law (Dewar) Rohit Kumar Das. 7. It transpires from the record that the case was instituted by the claimants alleging that on 23.11.2017 the deceased Ranju Devi was on the way to Dhanwar with her brother-in-law (Dewar) Rohit Kumar Das. Rohit Kumar Das was plying the motorcycle and deceased was the pillion rider. It has been alleged that at about 1:00 PM while they reached near Barjo Power House, PS – Dhanwar at that time the driver of the truck bearing Registration No. JH-09-AH-7626 being driven rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle from its behind in which Rohit Kumar Das had died on spot whereas his sister-in-law, Ranju Devi sustained grievous injuries and she was admitted in RIMS, Ranchi and during the treatment on 26.11.2017 she succumbed to the injuries and for that Dhanwar P.S. Case No.366 of 2017 was registered against the driver of the said truck and after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted for the offence under Section 279, 304, 307, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the age of the deceased namely Ranju Devi was 30 years at the time of the accident. 8. The learned Court has considered the deposition of CW-1, who has stated that Ranju Devi was housewife and her husband was earning member of their family. 9. CW-3, who is the husband of the deceased, in his deposition stated that Ranju Devi was housewife and her lifetime, Ranju Devi was maintained by him. 10. With regard to the earning of the deceased, the witnesses in their examination-in-chief stated that the deceased was a Tailor and Embroidery Worker and her monthly income was Rs.10,000/- per month, however, the same was negated by the learned Tribunal on the ground that C.W. 1 and C.W. 3, who are the close relative and husband of the deceased during their cross-examination admitted that the deceased was housewife and the learned Court has assessed the income of the deceased Rs.3,000/-. 11. From the above, it transpires that the witnesses have supported that the deceased was a Tailor and Embroidery Worker and only Witness No.1 and Witness No.3 has stated that she was housewife that’s why the income was assessed to the tune of Rs.3,000/- only. 12. 11. From the above, it transpires that the witnesses have supported that the deceased was a Tailor and Embroidery Worker and only Witness No.1 and Witness No.3 has stated that she was housewife that’s why the income was assessed to the tune of Rs.3,000/- only. 12. It is well settled that 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. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of 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 dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to be made. 13. In the case of Kirti and Another versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166 , wherein at paragraph No.11, it has been held as under :- Assessment of Monthly Income 11. Second, although it is correct that the claimants have been unable to produce any document evidencing Vinod’s income, nor have they established his employment as a teacher; but that doesn’t justify adoption of the lowest tier of minimum wage while computing his income. From the statement of witnesses, documentary evidence on record and circumstances of the accident, it is apparent that Vinod was comparatively more educationally qualified and skilled. Further, he maintained a reasonable standard of living for his family as evidenced by his use of a motorcycle for commuting. Preserving the existing standard of living of a deceased’s family is a fundamental endeavour of motor accident compensation law. 5 Thus, at the very least, the minimum wage of Rs 6197 as applicable to skilled workers during April 2014 in the State of Haryana ought to be applied in his case. 14. In view of the above, the appellants will be entitled with regard to the monthly income the minimum wages at the relevant time in the State of Jharkhand and it was pointed out that it was Rs.9125/- during the period of said accident. 15. So far addition of future prospect is concerned in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , wherein at paragraph No.59.4, it has been held as under :- 59.4. 15. So far addition of future prospect is concerned in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , wherein at paragraph No.59.4, it has been held as under :- 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 16. The age of the deceased was said to be 30 years, therefore, future prospect to 40% of the annual income will be added and in view of the ratio, the future prospect is required to be added in the said award and accordingly the appellants will be entitled for a further sum. 17. The award dated 30 th May, 2022 is modified to the above extent. The learned Tribunal will calculate the amount in above terms and insurance company will comply the same within eight weeks. 18. This appeal is allowed in above terms and disposed of.