The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles from various judgments to determine the compensation amount in a motor accident claims case.

( 1 ) THE appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of one Mrs. Rama Devi wife of appellant no. 1 and mother of appellants 2 to 4 in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

( 2 ) THE only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that gratuitous services rendered by the deceased to the family have been evaluated by the tribunal only at Rs. 660. 00 per month. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and others Versus State of Bihar and others AIR 2001 SC 3218 wherein it was observed that the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family even on a moderate estimate should be Rs. 3,000. 00 per month or Rs. 36,000. 00 per year. Relying upon this judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the gratuitous services rendered to the family by the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs. 3,000. 00 per month. Learned counsel has also challenged the finding of the Tribunal about its having deducted 1/3rd income from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. It is submitted that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Versus Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831 where no definite evidence was available about the amount the deceased was spending upon himself, the Court should break up the family into units, taking two units for adult and one unit for the minor and dividing the entire income into these units, the units of the deceased can be deducted from the same towards his personal expenses and the balance can be taken to be the loss of dependency to the family.

( 3 ) WHILE it is true that in Lata Wadhwa and others Versus State of Bihar and others (supra) the Supreme Court has observed that the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family could be taken at Rs. 3000. 00 per month, however, that judgment was given on the facts of that case. The deceased in that case belonged to the higher strata of the society and it was in those circumstances that the Supreme Court had taken the amount of Rs. 3000. 00 per month to be the value of the multifarious services rendered by the housewives in the absence of any other evidence. Observations of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa s case about the value of multifarious services rendered by the deceased housewife cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. However, in the absence of any other evidence the Court can take recourse to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act to evaluate the multifarious services rendered by the housewife. Second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act provides that where the deceased has no income, his/her notional income prior to the accident can be taken to be Rs. 15000. 00 per annum. The tribunal in the impugned judgment has held that the deceased was also gainfully employed for six months in a year and her annual income from such gainful employment has been assessed at Rs. 12,000. 00 per annum. Since the deceased was gainfully employed for six months in a year, her services to the family cannot be evaluated in terms of the second schedule at Rs. 15,000. 00 per annum. This Court in the facts of the present case would not be in error if the income of the deceased for rendering multifarious services to the family is taken at Rs. 10,000. 00 per annum on the date of the accident.

( 4 ) INCOME of the deceased from gainful employment has been taken by the tribunal to be Rs. 12,000. 00 per annum. Adding to this the value of multifarious services rendered by the deceased the total income of the deceased as on the date of the accident comes to Rs. 22,000. 00 per annum. The Tribunal refused to consider the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased on the ground that the job of the deceased as per evidence was not of per