Mr. Nawab Singh. J (Oral):- This claimants’ appeal is directed against the judgment-cum-Award dated March 16th, 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”), Gurgaon.

2. On April 29th, 2010 Sushila, aged 35-36 years, along with her three children, was travelling in jeep No. HR-20-D- 0904 from Tosham to Bhiwani. When they reached in the area of village Biran, a canter bearing No. HR-69-A-2662 driven by Ravinder in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction, at a fast speed and dashed into the jeep. Sushila and one Ranjit suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot. FIR No.186 (Exhibit P-1) under Section 304-A IPC was registered in Police Station Sadar, District Bhiwani against driver of the canter.

3. The claim application was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by husband, eight daughters and one son of the deceased. It was pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by selling milk and doing job in a private school.

4. The Tribunal considering the deceased to be unskilled labourer, held her income at Rs.4000/-per month rejecting the claim of the claimants. It was so held because there was no evidence led by the claimants that she was working in a private school and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by selling milk except the bald statement of husband of the deceased. Out of the income assessed, deduction of 1/5th was made for her personal and living expenses. The amount was calculated at Rs.38,400/- per year. She was 35/36 years old, so, multiplier of 15 was applied. The amount of dependency was assessed at Rs.5,76,000/-. Besides this, a sum of Rs.5000/- was awarded for funeral expenses and transportation of dead body. Rs.10,000/- were awarded for loss of consortium. In all, compensation of Rs.5,91,000/- was awarded to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal should not have deducted 1/5th for her personal and living expenses because the family comprised her husband and nine children. Out of them, eight were daughters. It was also argued that the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of consortium was also on lower side.

6. A Division Bench of this Court in Paramjit Singh and another vs. Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga and others, [2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2730 (DB)] : FAO No.3310 of 2012 (decided on May 16th, 2013) held that in case the deceased is a house-wife, there should not be any deduction towards personal and living expenses. The Division Bench referred to the judgment passed by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 673 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

10. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs. 12,000/- per annum in case of some and Rs. 10,000/- for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore