Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- Appellants are the son and daughter of Baljit Kaur W/o Lakhwinder Singh, who died at the age of 45 on 07.03.2010 in a motor vehicular accident caused by driver Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga of a bus owned by M/s New Majha Transport Cooperative Society Limited. The deceased was a housewife. The Tribunal assessed her income @ Rs.3,000/- per month but applied a cut of Rs.1,000/- towards her personal expenses and with a multiplier of 14, awarded a sum of Rs.3,36,000/- on account of loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total amount of Rs.3,46,000/- was awarded with interest @ 6% per annum to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual realization of the awarded amount. The awarded compensation was ordered to be shared equally by both the appellants.

2. Aggrieved against the award, the present appeal has been preferred in which at the time of issuing notice to the Insurance Company, it was ordered that on completion of service, the case be put up before the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the case was listed before the Lok Adalat and on 20.12.2012, the Lok Adalat referred the case back to this Court for adjudication on a question of law as to “whether in case of assessment of the notional income of a housewife, 1/3rd amount is to be deducted to arrive at the figure of dependency?” It was requested by the Lok Adalat that since there were divergent views of the learned Single Judges on the aforesaid issue, the matter may be listed for consideration by a Larger Bench.

3. Keeping in view the importance of the question involved, stated to be arising daily before the Lok Adalats, the matter was placed before the Division Bench and on 01.03.2013, counsel for the parties agreed that while deciding the aforesaid legal issue, the present appeal may also be decided on merits and for that matter, the record of the Tribunal was summoned and has been received.

4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Although in this case, the appellants have pleaded that their mother, though a housewife, was self-employed earning Rs.3,000/- per month, yet in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and another v. National Insurance Company and others, [2010 (5) Law Herald (SC) 3538 : 2010(2) Law Herald (Acc.) 1169] : 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 827, a two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that in case of death of a housewife in a motor vehicular accident, the assessment of compensation is virtually impossible to measure in terms of money. A housewife takes care of all the requirements of her husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. All these chores could be performed by a maidservant, but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children. Therefore, the dependents are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife. It was also observed that though Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act but in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier.

6. However, a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court, in the case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No.232 of 1991 decided on 16.08.2001, laid guidelines for the purpose of compensation to be awarded in case of non-earning housewives. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

“So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the hou