Compensation calculations in wrongful death cases must recognize homemakers' economic contributions, applying appropriate multipliers, while insurance companies cannot evade liability based on unlicensed driving under light motor vehicle regulations.

JUDGMENT

M.A.C.A.No.3041 of 2016 is an appeal preferred by the claimants in OP(M.V.) No.842 of 2011 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, challenging the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. M.A.C.A. No.3850 of 2016 is an appeal filed by the 3^rd respondent/insurance company in the said O.P., challenging the quantum of award and also contending that since the driver of the offending autorickshaw had no badge at the time of the accident, there was violation of policy conditions and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have given right of recovery of the award amount from the owner of vehicle under pay and recovery principle.

3. Since these two appeals have been filed challenging the very same award, these appeals are disposed of together. Parties in these appeals shall be referred to as claimants and respondents as shown in the OP(MV).

4. The claimants, who are the husband and children of the victim lady named Mila, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , stating that on 01.06.2011, while victim Mila was traveling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL 8/G 6686 driven by the 1^st respondent, the autorickshaw fell into a dip, and as a result of which, victim Mila sustained fatal injuries and she succumbed to the injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the 1^st respondent. Hence, R1 to R3 who are the driver, owner and insurer are liable to pay compensation.

5. Before the tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained absent, and they were set ex parte.

6. The Insurance company filed written statement stating that though the autorickshaw involved in the accident had valid insurance coverage, the 1^st respondent, who was the driver of the said autorickshaw had no badge to drive the vehicle and therefore, there was a violation of policy conditions and accordingly, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner. The 3^rd respondent also contended that the compensation claimed under various heads are excessive.

7. After trial, the learned Tribunal passed an award for Rs.8,39,000/- with 8% interest per annum and cost.

8. According to the claimants, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are inadequate and it is not a just compensation; that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under all heads are very meager and therefore, they seek enhancement of the compensation amount.

9. At first let us see whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal needs any interference by this Court.

10. The victim was aged 40. According to the claimants, the victim lady was a coolie worker and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. But, the learned Tribunal took her notional income as Rs.4,000/- per month for compensation.

11. The notional income of the victim taken by the Tribunal is on a lower side. The victim was a lady aged 40, who was the wife of the 1^st claimant and mother of claimants 2 and 3. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the claimants that the victim was a coolie worker. Apart from that, her contribution as a homemaker is invaluable and immeasurable and it constitutes a substantial economic contribution to the family. The work done by a woman as a homemaker may be difficult to quantify, but it is certainly not without value. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently recognized this principle and has held that the services of a homemaker must be assigned a notional income while determining compensation.

12. Regard being had to all these aspects, the notional income of the victim is taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. Since the deceased was aged 40, the income to be added towards future prospects is 25% ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] . If 25% is thus added to