( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 19. 07. 2006 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in MACP No. 1477 of 1999 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,95,000/- with proportionate costs and interest to the husband and minor son aged 10 years of Tulsiben Virambhai, who died at the age of 30 years in a motor vehicle accident that took place between the scooter on which the deceased was a pillion rider and the luxury bus insured by the appellant " insurance Company on June 28, 1999.

( 2 ) MR. Hasmukh Thakker with Mr. Palak Thakker, learned advocate for the appellant " insurance Company has challenged the award only on the question of quantum of compensation. He submitted that on the basis that the deceased was doing agriculture work and cattle feeding work, the claimants had filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 4 lacs. According to claimant No. 1 " husband of the deceased, the deceased was earning net income of Rs. 3,000/- per month, but in absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month and the prospective income of the deceased at Rs. 2,250/- per month. Deducting one-third amount therefrom as the personal expenses, the Tribunal assessed loss of dependency at Rs. 1,500/- per month i. e. Rs. 18,000/- per annum. Looking to the age of the deceased (30 years), the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and computed compensation for loss of dependency benefit at Rs. 2,70,000/ -. Adding thereto Rs. 20,000/- for loss to the estate and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses, the Tribunal made award for total compensation of Rs. 2,95,000/ -.

( 3 ) IT is submitted by Mr. Thakker that when there was no documentary evidence, the Tribunal should not have awarded any compensation for loss of dependency benefit and that the Tribunal should not have taken into consideration the household services alleged to have been rendered by the deceased.

( 4 ) WE would first like to set out the relevant part of the paragraph containing the reasons given by the Tribunal.

"it should be borne in mind that, deceased certainly must be doing the work as household wife. She must be doing all the necessary work to keep the house in order, she must have cooked food for the family, she must have looked after the upbringing of the children and also she must have taken interest in the study of the children therefore, all these services rendered by the deceased to the family shows that, we should infer that, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,500/ -. Keeping in mind the prospective income of the deceased, her prospective income would be of Rs. 2,250/- and if 1/3rd i. e. Rs. 750/- for the personal expenses is deducted then the amount of Rs. 1,500/- would be the amount of family dependency therefore, loss of yearly dependency of the family would be to the tune of Rs. 18,000/ -. When the accident took place, the deceased was aged 30 years which is apparent from P. M. Note Exh. 48 and hence if the multiplier of 15 is applied then, the amount comes to Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rs. 18,000/- X 15) therefore, under the head of loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/ -. "

( 5 ) IN our view, the approach of the Tribunal was quite justified and reasonable. The claimants may not have been able to adduce any evidence to show that the deceased was doing agriculture and cattle feeding work, but judicial notice can certainly be taken of the services being rendered by the housewife to the family. In a system where a judicial decision is ordinarily based on statute law or case law, it may be unusual to refer to an e-mail foreword, but one quoted hereinafter is so compellingly appropriate in the context of the present discussion that we cannot help quoting it in its entirety. "why Women R so Special

Mum and Dad were watching TV when Mum said, I m tired, an