The determination of compensation for permanent disability should be consistent with settled principles of law and may be guided by the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court.

1. This appeal questions the legality and correctness of findings recorded by the tribunal in its judgment and order dated 29th March, 2005 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal, in Motor Accident Claim No.57/1997 in respect of the quantum of compensation determined as payable by it to the appellant.

2. The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by her in the accident which occurred on or about 6.45 a.m. on 19.05.1996 on Patur-Mahur Road, near Warehouse, Pusad. At that time, the appellant was proceeding by Tempo-Trax bearing registration No. MH-30/BB-1018 owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2. The tempotrax driver had lost control over the vehicle and dashed it against the tree standing on the road side. The disability sustained by the appellant because of the injuries she suffered in this accident, was to the extent of 30% and was of permanent nature. She was required to incur substantial amount on account of treatment administered to her at various hospitals at Pusad, Yavatmal and Nagpur. On merits of the petition, the learned Member of the Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.1,10,410/- including no fault liability compensation from the respondent nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The judgment and order in this petition was rendered on 29th March, 2005 and now against the quantum of compensation, so awarded, the appellant is before this Court in the present appeal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents though duly served on merits. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is, Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation ?

4. I must say here that the findings recorded by the tribunal on the issues of occurrence of the accident, rashness and negligence of the driver of the tempo-trax involved in the accident being the cause of the accident and the liability of respondent no.1 as the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, and the liability of respondent no.2 as insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, have attained finality. It has also not been brought to my notice that any appeal against these findings has been filed or these findings have been upset by any appellate Court.

5. The tribunal has recorded a finding that the disability suffered by the appellant as a result of injuries that she suffered in the accident was of permanent nature and it was to the extent of 30%. I have no reason to differ with this finding. But, the tribunal has not given any reflection in the impugned award as to how did it calculate the amount of Rs.50,000/- to be an appropriate compensation for permanent disability so suffered by the appellant. This amount has been determined by the tribunal by taking into various factors such as loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, hardships, discomfort, mental stress and so on and so forth. But the breakup for all these factors has not been given nor any formula by which such a determination is made is stated in the impugned award. I think, determination of this amount as just and proper compensation for the permanent disability suffered by the appellant is not consistent with the settled principles of law. Therefore, finding of the tribunal in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. In the case of Arunkumar Agrawal Vs. National Insurance Company, reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court SCC 218, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has spelt out some guidelines in this regard. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken into account the immeasurable services that a housewife renders to her family. One can see that by keeping one's eyes open while at home. One would then realise that a wife or mother is not a mere house holder, she is a home maker also, and in every sense of the term. A homemaker may not have any ostensible income to