ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(M.V.) No. 72 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, N.Paravur. It was an application filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of one Khadeeja in a motor accident occurred on 30.09.2009, on the Vypin-Munambam road, involving a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-47/7705 owned, driven and insured by the respondents 1 to 3. The deceased was a pillion rider in the motor cycle.

2. Before the Tribunal, Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the appellants. After considering the materials on record, the Tribunal held that Khadeeja died due to the injury sustained in the accident and that the appellants being her legal heirs are entitled for payment of compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of 68,335/-, which was rounded to 69,000/-, towards compensation, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till deposit and the 3rd respondent insurer was held liable to pay the same to the appellants.

3. Inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is the subject matter of this appeal.

4. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent insurer.

5. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads represents just and reasonable compensation.

6. The 3rd respondent insurer has admitted that the vehicle involved in the accident was covered by a valid package policy covering pillion rider. The claim petition is one filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis, which was inserted by Act 54 of 1994, with effect from 14.11.1994. The purpose of Section 163A of the Act and the Second Schedule is to avoid long drawn litigation and delay in payment of compensation to the victims and their heirs who are in dire need of relief. A claimant who chooses to lodge a claim under Section 163A of the Act in respect of a fatal accident shall be entitled for the compensation outlined in the table to the Second Schedule to the Act and also the amounts specified in Para.3 of the Schedule under general damages. As per Para.3 of the Second Schedule, in case of death, in addition to the compensation outlined in the table to the Second Schedule, the claimant shall be entitled for 2,000/- towards funeral expenses; 5,000/- towards loss of consortium; if the beneficiary is the spouse; 2,500/- towards loss of estate; and towards medical expenses, the actual expenses incurred before death, supported by bills/vouchers, but not exceeding 15,000/-.

7. The appellants contended that, at the time of accident the deceased was aged 65 years and earning a monthly income of 3,000/- by running a poultry farm at her house. But, they have not chosen to produce any materials in support of the said claim. By running a poultry farm, the deceased could have easily earned a monthly income of 3,000/- in the year 2009. Even otherwise, taking the deceased as a homemaker, it is reasonable to fix her monthly income at 3,000/-, for the gratuitous services rendered with love and affection to the family and managing the household affairs. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2009, it is only reasonable to fix the notional annual income of the deceased at 36,000/-. Therefore, the compensation in case of death, as indicated in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act comes to 1,80,000/-. After deducting ?rd towards personal expenses, the extent of compensation payable under the head loss of dependency will come to 1,20,000/-. The Tribunal awarded only a meagre s