JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Netravalkar for the Appellants and Mr. P. Sawant for the Respondent.

2. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd., along with the driver- cum-owner of the culprit vehicle bearing registration No. GA 07/C-0989 appeal the Judgment and Award dated 2/3/2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji (Tribunal) in Claim Petition No.30/2010, awarding compensation of Rs.3,62,500/-, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of application, till the date of award towards the permanent disablement to the extent of 50% suffered by the Claimant-Deepali out of the injuries arising from the accident that took place on 25/8/2009, when the culprit vehicle dashed against her when she was standing along with 2 other ladies on the left side of the road.

3. Mr. Netravalkar, at the outset, made it clear that the Appellants were challenging only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, since, according to the Insurance Company, the same was excessive.

4. Mr. Netravalkar submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever about Deepali operating Alankar Restaurant at Vasco- Goa, particularly since, the license produced by her was valid only up to 31/3/2007. Mr. Netravalkar submitted that even this license is not a trade license, but a license to exhibit a board. He submitted that Deepali neither produced any tax returns, nor bank records in support of her claim that she was earning a net income of Rs.50,000/- per month from the restaurant business.

5. Mr. Netravalkar submitted that even the Tribunal has not believed the case of Deepali about operating the restaurant and earning Rs.50,000/- per month. He, however, submitted that the Tribunal has seriously erred in taking the monthly income of Deepali as Rs.4,000/-, after accepting that she was only a housewife. Despite several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarifying the position, Mr. Netravalkar, no doubt based on insensitive instructions from the Insurance Company whom he represents, went on to submit that the net income of a housewife should be taken at a maximum of Rs.15,000/- per annum i.e. Rs.1500/- per month, having regard to Note No.6(b) in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Mr. Netravalkar, however, submitted that out of a charity, he would not object to the income of Deepali being taken as Rs.20,000/- per annum, i.e. Rs.1,666/- per month.

6. The above submissions were made by Mr. Netravalkar in the context of an accident that took place on 25/8/2009 in the teeth of the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which have settled the position about the assessment of income of a housewife in such matters :

(I) Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 8 SCC 197.

(II) Arun Kumar Agrawal & another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2010) 9 SCC 218.

(III) Urviben Chiragbhai Sheth vs. Vijaybhai Shambhubhai Joranputra and others, (2011) 12 SCC 582.

(IV) Laxmidhar Nayak & others vs. Jugal Kishore Behera and others, (2018) 1 SCC 746.

(V) Rajendra Singh and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2020) 7 SCC 256 and

(VI) Kirti and another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166.

7. Mr. Netravalkar, without prejudice, submitted that there is no question of making any addition on account of future prospects to the notional income of a housewife, because, such additions can be made only where the actual income is proved. This submission was made on behalf of the Insurance Company in the teeth of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti (supra), rejecting such precise contentions.

8. Mr. Netravalkar finally insisted that the compensation, in this case, could be determined at a maximum of Rs.1,30,000/- by taking Deepali’s annual income at Rs.20,000/- by applying the multiplier of 13 and thereafter, reducing the compensation amount by 50% since this was the percentage of disability suffered by Deepali. He submitted that the impugne