JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 1.9.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Kangra at Dharmshala (for short the ‘Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.40-D/II of 2012. 2. Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as claimants) filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of Smt. Krishna Devi Pal, who was mother of claimants No. 1 to 3 and wife of claimant No.4 respectively. Smt. Krishna Devi Pal was alleged to have died in a motor vehicle accident involving Truck bearing Registration No. MP-04HE-1246. It was the case of the claimants that on 15.12.2011, Smt. Krishna Devi Pal was crossing the road at Village Rajol, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. At about 10. AM, the offending Truck bearing Registration No. MP-04HE-1246 came in high speed and hit the deceased causing multiple injuries and consequent death. The cause of accident was alleged to be rash and negligent driving of respondent No.6 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘driver’). The Truck was owned by respondent No.5 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘owner’). 3. The deceased was stated to be 39 years old at the time of her death. The deceased was a housewife. 4. The owner and driver jointly contested the claim petition by alleging that the deceased suddenly entered the main road, without waiting for moving traffic on the road. As per them, though, the truck was being driven in a very slow speed, yet due to the negligence of deceased, she could not be saved from being hit. The fact that the offending vehicle was insured by the appellant at the time of accident was also disclosed. 5. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurer’) separately contested the claim petition by raising preliminary objections as to maintainability of the claim petition and contravention of terms and conditions of the policy. 6. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- “i) Whether on 15.12.2011, at about 10.45 AM, at village Rajol due to rash and negligent driving of respondent number 2, death of Krishna Devi was caused in the accident, as alleged? OPP ii) If issue number 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent? OPP iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-3. OPP ii) If issue number 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent? OPP iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-3. iv) Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance that too without route permit, registration certificate etc., as alleged? OPR-3. v) Relief.” 7. Issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in affirmative and the remaining issues were decided in negative. The claim petition was accordingly allowed and the claimants have been held entitled to compensation of Rs. 14,16,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization. The apportionment has also made by the learned Tribunal as under:- Claimant Amount Claimant No.1 Rs. 3,00,000/- Claimant No.2 Rs. 3,00,000/- Claimant No.3 Rs. 3,00,000/- Claimant No.4 Rs. 5,16,000/- 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 9. Learned counsel for the insurer has fairly confined his arguments to the extent that the impugned award was excessive in so far as quantum of compensation was concerned. He submitted that the income of the deceased was wrongly assessed at Rs. 4000/- per month. According to him, the deceased was a housewife having no actual income and for such reason her income was required to be assessed notionally on the basis of the minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act. On this premise, it has been submitted that the annual income of the deceased could not be assessed to be more than 3600/- per month. He further stated that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/5th of the income of deceased towards personal expenses whereas, it had to be 1/4th by applying the ratio of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680 . The grant of Rs. 2,00,000/- each to claimants No. 1 to 3 and Rs. 1,00,000/- to claimant No.4 on account of loss of consortium has also been challenged to be in violation of Pranay Sethi (supra). Similarly, objection has been raised towards the award of Rs. 40,000/- towards funeral charged, which according to him should have been Rs. 15,000/-. 10. The grant of Rs. 2,00,000/- each to claimants No. 1 to 3 and Rs. 1,00,000/- to claimant No.4 on account of loss of consortium has also been challenged to be in violation of Pranay Sethi (supra). Similarly, objection has been raised towards the award of Rs. 40,000/- towards funeral charged, which according to him should have been Rs. 15,000/-. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the assessment of income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month cannot be said to be unreasonable. He has contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded nothing to the claimants on account of loss of future prospects of the deceased. It has also been pointed out that the learned Tribunal has also not awarded any amount to the claimants towards loss of estate. 11. In the above manner, both sides have made rival claims. 12. The first contention raised on behalf of insurer with respect to assessment of monthly income of deceased needs to be rejected for the reason that the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act can only be a guiding factor. It cannot be applied as general rule in all cases where actual income of the victim of motor vehicle accident is not documented. The house wife has to perform multitasks, more particularly, in the rural areas of the State, which includes the agricultural; dairy besides household pursuits. Her job always requires overtime involvement. Thus, to compare the wage payable to workman under the Minimum Wages Act with the contribution of a house wife is not justified. The workman works for specific hours, whereas the house wife has to bear the responsibilities of multitasking round the clock. In this view of the matter, the assessment of Rs. 4000/-per month as income of the deceased needs no interference. 13. Coming to the next question as to what would have been correct deduction from the income of deceased on account of personal expenses it can be seen that the number had four dependents. As per Pranay Sethi (supra) 1/4th of the income of deceased was to be deducted and for such reason the contention raised by learned counsel for insurer to that effect requires to be upheld. Thus, the monthly dependency would be Rs.4000- Rs.1000 = Rs 3000/-. As per Pranay Sethi (supra) 1/4th of the income of deceased was to be deducted and for such reason the contention raised by learned counsel for insurer to that effect requires to be upheld. Thus, the monthly dependency would be Rs.4000- Rs.1000 = Rs 3000/-. Admittedly, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount on account of loss of future prospects, which according to Pranay Sethi would be at the rate of 40% i.e. Rs. 1200/- per month. The monthly dependency after such addition would be Rs. 4200/-. The parties have not disputed the correctness of applicable multiplier of 15 and in this manner, the total dependency would be 4200x15x12= Rs. 7,56,000/-. 14. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenditure, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the insurer. 15. Now, coming to the award of loss of consortium, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- each to claimants No. 1 to 3 and Rs. 1,00,000/- to claimant No.4, which is not in consonance with the principle laid down in Pranay Sethi and Magma Gen. Insurance Ltd. Vs Nanu (2018) 18 SCC 130 . The award of compensation on account of loss of consortium has to be Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimants, which will make the total of Rs. 1,60,000/- for all the claimants under such head. The claimants will also be entitled 10% enhancement on the above amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- from the date of death till the passing of award. In the instant case, the death had taken place on 15.12.2011 and the award was passed on 1.9.2017. By calculating the above said increase, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 1,60,000/- + 32,000/- = Rs. 1,92,000/- 16. The award of Rs. 40,000/- by the learned Tribunal under the head of funeral charges also deserves to be reduced to Rs. 15,000/- in terms of Pranay Sethi, however, enhancement of 10% after every three years on such amount from the date of death to the passing of award will be applicable and on this count, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 15000/- + 3000/- = Rs. 18,000/-. 17. In addition to above, the claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- under the head of loss of estate again with pro-rata enhancement of 10% after three years from the date of death till the passing of award. 15000/- + 3000/- = Rs. 18,000/-. 17. In addition to above, the claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- under the head of loss of estate again with pro-rata enhancement of 10% after three years from the date of death till the passing of award. The amount on this count will be Rs. 15000/- + 3000 = Rs. 18,000/-. 18. In result, the claimants are held entitled to compensation as under:- Sr. No. Heads Calculation 1. Loss of dependency Rs.7,56,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000/- 3. Enhancement on the amount of loss of consortium Rs. 32,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 5. Enhancement on the amount of loss of estate Rs. 3000/- 6. Funeral Charges Rs. 15,000/- 7. Enhancement on the amount funeral charges Rs. 3000/- 8. Medical treatment and taxi charges etc. Rs. 1,00,000/- 9. Total Rs. 10,54,000/- 19. In addition, the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the entire award amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization, as ordered by the learned Tribunal. 20. The claimants shall share the compensation in equal proportion. 21. The appeal is accordingly disposed of and the impugned Award passed shall stand modified to the extent as held above. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back.