BASANT, J.

What is the monetary equivalent of the services of a home maker? How is the same to be ascertained in a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act? Can the presumption under clause 6(b) of the Second Schedule be held to be universally applicable to all claims under Section 166? Even when the very claim would not be maintainable under Section 163A, can such a presumption be drawn under clause 6 (b) in a claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act? How long will the polity have to wait for the legislature of the constitutional republic to accept the regime of community property’ of spouses being equally entitled to property acquired during coverture, as part of the Indian Law.

These interesting questions are aroused in our mind by the very useful discussions raised at the Bar by the learned counsel Shri P.K. Ravi Shanker.

2. Claimant is the appellant. He lost both his parents in a motor accident which took place on 24.08.2002. Against a claim of Rs.2,40,000/-, in respect of the death of his mother, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,71,000/- as per the details given below:

3. The appellant/claimant is said to be aggrieved by the impugned award. The challenge is raised only on the ground of quantum.

4. We requested the counsel to explain his contentions and be specific. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned award does not ensure that just compensation is awarded to the claimant. The claimant was a young man aged 19 years on the date of death of his parents. His mother, in respect of whom compensation is claimed in the instant case, was aged 46 years. It was claimed that she was employed. She was earning an income by giving private tuitions to students, it was contended. It was asserted that her monthly income was Rs.3,000/-.

5. The Tribunal in the impugned award came to the conclusion that there is nothing to show that the deceased mother of the claimant was earning any income. The Tribunal however drew inspiration from the presumption under clause 6 (a) of the Second Schedule and came to the conclusion that as on the date of death of the deceased even if she is assumed to be a non earning person, an income of Rs.1,500/- per mensum can safely be assumed. It is accordingly that the Tribunal calculated the quantum of compensation for loss of dependency. The Tribunal assumed that Rs.1,500/-was the monthly income; 1/3 would go to meet the personal expenses of the deceased; and 13 was assumed to be the multiplier.

6. The challenge against the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is directed firstly against the monthly income assumed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant raises 2 contentions. It is first of all contended that actually invoking the presumption under clause 6(b) of the Second Schedule, monthly income of the deceased must have been reckoned at, at least 1/3 of the income of her husband. The husband was earning an income exceeding Rs.21,000/- per mensum. At least Rs.7,000/- must have been reckoned as the monthly income in this case, contends the counsel.

7. Secondly the counsel contends that, at any rate, following the dictum in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar [AIR 2001 SC 3218], monthly income should have been taken at least at Rs.3,000/- per mensum.

8. The learned counsel raises a contention that no amount has been awarded under the head of funeral and miscellaneous expenses. Appropriate amount is liable to be awarded under that head also, contends the counsel.

9. The claim was initially staked for an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. Before this Court I.A.No.3053 of 2009 has been filed praying that the amount claimed may be amended and altered to Rs.3,37,000/-. There can be no dispute that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to permit amendment of the application to enhance the claim amount. We need not in this case go into the question whether even without an amendment such amount that is found to be just and r