Deepak Gupta, J.

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by one judgment since both the appeals arise out of one award dated 08.08.2006 passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 103 of 2006.

2. The undisputed facts are that on 28.11.2005 Claimant No. 1 – Sunil Prasad was driving his motorcycle. It is alleged that one Tractor bearing registration No. CG-11A/3063 along with Trolley No. CG-11A/3064 came from behind in high speed and hit the motorcycle. Due to the accident, Claimant – Sunil Prasad suffered injuries and his wife Rajkumari unfortunately died. Two claim petitions were filed, one for the personal injuries suffered by Sunil Prasad and one on account of the death of his wife Rajkumari. As far as claim petition of Sunil Prasad is concerned, he was awarded compensation. He had also filed an appeal for enhancement of the compensation before this Court. The Insurance Company had also challenged the award passed in favour of Sunil Prasad with regard to his injuries. The appeal filed by Sunil Prasad was dismissed on merits. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was not dismissed on merits, but on account of non-compliance of the orders of this Court. Now, the present two appeals arise out of the award passed in respect of death of Rajkumari, wife of Sunil Prasad and mother of Claimants No. 2 to 4.

3. As far as negligence is concerned, I am clearly of the view that in view of the fact that the award in the case of Sunil Prasad has attained finality, the finding of negligence recorded therein operates as res-judicata in the present case. Even otherwise, the admitted facts show that the motorcycle was going in front and it was hit from behind by the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley. This it self was enough to fasten the liability on the driver of the Tractor-Trolley. Claimant Sunil Prasad has stepped into the witness box and stated that he was driving the motorcycle at a slow speed and the Tractor-Trolley hit the motorcycle from behind. The driver of the Tractor-Trolley has not been examined and therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against him. Therefore, I uphold the finding arrived on the issue of negligence.

4. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandates that the Claims Tribunal should award just compensation. What is just compensation has been subject matter of large number of cases and it is not necessary to multiply all the authorities. As far as compensation is concerned, deceased Rajkumari was a housewife, aged about 30 years.

5. In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2010 SC 3426, the Apex Court, while dealing with the issue as to how the income of a housewife has to be assessed, approved the observation of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the following terms:

"27. In A. Rajam v. M. Manikya Reddy, 1989 ACJ 542 (Andhra Pradesh HC), M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (as he then was) advocated giving of a wider meaning to the word 'services' in cases relating to award of compensation to the dependents of a deceased wife/mother. Some of the observations made in that judgment are extracted below:

"The loss to the husband and children consequent upon the death of the housewife or mother has to be computed by estimating the loss of 'services' to the family, if there was reasonable prospect of such services being rendered freely in the future, but for the death. It must be remembered that any substitute to be so employed is not likely to be as economical as the housewife. Apart from the value of obtaining substituted services, the expense of giving accommodation or food to the substitute must also be computed. From this total must be deducted the expense the family would have otherwise been spending for the deceased housewife. While estimating the 'services' of the housewife, a narrow meaning should not be given