Perturbed and agitated over an observation of the tribunal in its order dt. 6-12-2003, wherein it portrayed the claimant as “only an house wife” made her prefer the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The short question that arises for consideration in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is the amount of compensation which a housewife who is a non-earning member is entitled to when she suffers 40% disability in a road accident.

3. The present appeal has a chequered history. Originally, the injured filed MVOP No.582/1994 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur. The tribunal by its order dt. 27-7-1997 awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant preferred CMA No.1066/1999 before this Honourable Court and this Honourable Court by its order dt. 23-6-2003 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the tribunal with the following observation:

“In this appeal the counsel for the appellant contended that the Court below erred in not awarding sufficient compensation though sufficient material was produced by the claimant injured. Though the claimant produced medical certificates like discharge certificate, disability certificate, there was no proper proof in regard thereto. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment delivered today in CMA No.489/99 though medical evidence was produced there was no proper proof in regard thereto and mere producing Doctor certificate is not enough and the Court should not base upon its findings on the production of documents and each case has to be decided independently. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration by the Court below.”

4. As per the orders of this Honoruable Court, notices were issued to both parties and an opportunity was given to adduce evidence, if any. But both parties reported no further evidence and argued the mater. The tribunal after re-appreciating the evidence awarded only a sum of Rs.50,746/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

6. The brief facts which are necessary for proper adjudication of the appeal are as under: On l6-7-1994 at about 7 PM while the claimant was coming from Guntur in RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 9Z 3365 to see her mother who was admitted in Guntur General Hospital, Guntur, the said bus dashed against the stationed lorry on the road margin near Nallapadu. Because of the said accident the claimant sustained crush injury to her left hand. According to the claim petition, the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the RTC bus.

7. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation resisted the claim by filing counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. According to them, the claimant was responsible for the accident as she kept her hand out of the window which touched the angular of the lorry stationed by the side of the road. According to them, there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus.

8. In support of her claim, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2-the Doctor who treated her. She also got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Ex.X-1. On behalf of the respondent-Corporation, R.W.1 was examined.

9. The finding of the tribunal with regard to accident taking place on 6-7-1994 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the RTC bus remained unchallenged since the said finding has not been challenged by the Corporation either in the earlier round of litigation or later.

10. The only point that remains for consideration is whether the claimant who is a housewife is entitled for compensation and if so to what amount?

11. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that the claimant sustained 40% disabi