JUDGEMENT : (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, J.) 1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in claim case No. 280/2014 (2266/2011) titled as Smt. Mamta Meena vs. Aman Kumar Dharwal and ors. whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 53,592/- in favour of appellant- claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that on 16.09.2011 injured Mamta Meena along with her husband and children were going on motor cycle No.AP-31-AJ-1342 towards their residence at Pratap Nagar. At about 9.00 PM near Bambala bridge, Tonk Road, a Car bearing Registration No. RJ-14-TA-2859 came from backside in rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle. Due to the said accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence claim petition. 3. Notices were served to the respondents. However, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to No.3 no one appeared nor any written statement was filed. Therefore, learned Tribunal proceeded ex parte. Respondent No.4-Insurance Company of the offending vehicle appeared and filed the written statement disputing all the averments made in the claim petition. It is averred that according to the terms of the policy the vehicle owner did not provide information about the accident as per the Rules and at the time of the accident the vehicle Driver was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle. It is further averred that it is necessary to have a valid and effective permit and fitness certificate for the operation of a commercial vehicle, whereas the vehicle was being used without a valid and effective permit and fitness document etc. therefore the petition of the claimant may be dismissed. 4. The Tribunal has framed four issues for consideration. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined AW.1 Kamlesh Meena and herself as AW.2 and produced documentary evidence Ex.1 to Ex.67. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the respondents. 5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimant, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.53,592/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 6. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the respondents. 5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimant, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.53,592/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 20.03.2015, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant. 7. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that though claimant is a housewife but from tutions, she was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. That fact was not controverted by the Insurance Company by leading any evidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal in absence of any counter evidence assessed a meager amount. The learned Tribunal has not followed the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, therefore, the appellant-claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the appellant is not entitled for enhancement in compensation since the learned Tribunal after considering all the factual aspects of the matter awarded a just and reasonable compensation. 10. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 11. The manner in which the accident occurred is not disputed. This appeal has been filed only questioning quantum of compensation, hence there is no need for any discussion on the question of negligence. 12. At the time of accident, age of injured Mamta being 27 years was not disputed. 13. The learned Tribunal after elaborately discussing the factual aspects awarded a sum of Rs. 53,592/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. 14. The Tribunal ought to have followed the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in:- (i) (2017) 16 SCC 680 , National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (ii) (2018) 18 SCC 130 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors. However, without following the guidelines issued in the said judgments, the Tribunal mechanically awarded compensation which is not permissible. 15. Pranay Sethi and Others (ii) (2018) 18 SCC 130 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors. However, without following the guidelines issued in the said judgments, the Tribunal mechanically awarded compensation which is not permissible. 15. Learned Tribunal has awarded very meager amount of compensation under different heads though the contribution of a housewife in a family is invaluable and cannot be equated with any wages but in absence of alleged proof of income, her direct and indirect monthly income, in no circumstances, could be less than the minimum wages admissible to a skilled labourer prevailing at the time of the accident, therefore, considering the month of 30 days, monthly income of injured @ 155/- per day comes to Rs. 4650/- adding its 40% i.e. Rs.1860/- towards future prospects in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), thereby monthly income of the injured would come to Rs.6510/- per month . Since the injured suffered partial disability of 11.50%, therefore, reckoning 8% as whole body disability, her monthly income comes to Rs.521/- and loss of earning capacity, using multiplier of 17 as per determined age comes to Rs.521X17X12=1,06,284/-. 16. In addition, the injured is also entitled for medical bill of Rs.13,592/-, for pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- and for six days’ admission in hospital Rs. 3,600/-. Accordingly, the compensation amount is re-assessed as 1,48,476/-. 17. The appellant-claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,48,476/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. 18. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal is modified to the above extent. 19. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified /enhanced award of amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire modified/ enhanced award with accrued interest in proportion as determined in the original award passed by the learned Tribunal, after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making appropriate and necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellant-claimant shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal, if any. The appellant-claimant shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal, if any. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of certified copy of this judgment. 20. The appeal is partly allowed.