The court emphasized the assessment of compensation for loss of a housewife's services, aligning with parameters set by prior judgments.

1. The unsuccessful respondent No. 1 is the appellant which seeks to assail the award dated 5.10.2005, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Second Additional District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P. No. 574 of 2001. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein are the claimants, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are the owner and insurer of Ambassador car bearing No. DL 1C - H 1393.

2. The claimant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents - in - law and claimant Nos. 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased who died in a motor accident that occurred on 7.5.2001 at about 6 a.m. near Muppavaram village in Prakasam District. It was the case of the claimants that on the fateful day, the deceased and others were travelling in Ambassador car bearing No. DL 1C - H 1393 owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 3, from Tadepalli to Tirupathi and on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 - Z 5697, it hit the car on account of which the deceased and others received multiple injuries and the deceased died on account of those injuries. The marriage of the deceased with one Ravi Srinivas Reddy, son of claimant Nos. 1 and 2, was performed on the previous day that was on 6.5.2001. The deceased was hale and healthy and aged 20 years and she was doing tailoring work and earning thereby an amount of Rs.3,000 per month and on account of her death, the claimants suffered mentally and financially.

3. The appellant Corporation resisted the claim on the premises that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the driver of the car who was in a sleepy condition and drove the car to the extreme right side despite the fact that the driver of the bus took all precautions while driving it towards his extreme left side and that the compensation claimed was highly excessive and the rate of interest could not be granted beyond 6 per cent per annum.

4. The respondent No. 2 remained ex parte and the respondent No. 3 denied its liability.

5. At the time of inquiry, three witnesses were examined on the side of the claimants besides getting Exhs. A1 to A4 marked. Three witnesses were examined on the side of the respondents besides getting copy of the policy, Exh. B1 marked.

6. On the issue of negligence, the learned Tribunal after having appreciated the evidence reached a clear conclusion to the effect that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus of the Corporation. Consequently, the Tribunal exonerated the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle from any liability. The Tribunal fixed the multiplier as 16, relevant to the age of the deceased at the time of her death. For paucity of evidence in support of the claim that she was doing tailoring work and used to earn thereby Rs.100 per day, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000 per annum on the basis that she was a non - earning member as per the provisions of the Second Schedule under the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 and proceeded to assess the compensation at Rs.1,65,000 in all and apportioned the same amongst the claimants. Having been aggrieved by the said award, the Corporation filed the instant appeal. The claimants questioning the inadequacy of the compensation granted by the Tribunal preferred the cross - objections.

7. It is the contention of the learned standing counsel for the Corporation that there has been contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car and that the compensation granted is excessive and exorbitant.

8. Mr. N. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, on the other hand, would contend that the compensation granted by the Tr