P. Sam Koshy, J.

Present is an appeal by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 9.8.2007 passed by the learned Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Kondagaon, District Bastar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 96/2007.

2. Vide the said impugned award, the Tribunal in a death case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act has awarded the compensation only to the extent of no fault liability of Rs. 50,000/- plus the incidental expenses of Rs.10,000/- totalling Rs. 60,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.

3. The facts of the case are that, the deceased Bhagwati met with an accident on 7.2.2006 when she was hit by a Tata Sumo Jeep bearing registration No. CG-15-A-1309 as a result of which she received grievous injuries to which she succumbed after about ten months of treatment on 7.2.2006. The said Tata Sumo was owned by the respondent No. 2 and was driven by the respondent No. 1 and was insured with the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.

4. The reason for restricting the compensation to the extent of only no fault liability by the Tribunal is that, the deceased being the housewife was dependent on her husband Tati Ram who was alive on the date of the accident who had died a natural death before the claim application was filed and that since the claimants as well as the deceased were dependent on the Tati Ram, the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards loss of dependency and restricted it to Rs. 50,000/- under the no fault liability. The Counsel for the appellant submits, that the finding of the Tribunal is bad in law and deserves to be set aside and the claimants be granted suitable compensation.

5. The Counsel for the Insurance Company however opposing the appeal submits, that since admittedly, the deceased was dependent on her husband and that the claimants also were dependent on the earning of their father, the finding of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference and the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.

6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record what is undisputed is the date of accident to be 7.2.2006, the deceased having died because of the injury sustained by the accident on 7.2.2006, the claimants being the sons of the deceased. Another fact which is not in dispute is that, before the claim application could be filed, the father of the claimants also died a natural death on 15.2.2006.

7. Undisputedly, the deceased in the instant case did not have a permanent source of income except for the fact, that she was a housewife/ homemaker.

8. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and Anr. v. National Insurance Company Limited, V (2010) SLT 290 : III (2010) ACC 313 (SC) : (2010) 9 SCC 218, wherein the Supreme Court in paragraphs 26, 35 and 50 has held as under:

"26: In England the Courts used to award damages solely on the basis of pecuniary loss of family due to the demise of the wife. In India the Courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of the husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother wh