1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1807 of 2000. Prakash son of Shri Ramswaroop & Others VERSUS Jag Mohan son of Shri Basant Singh & Others Date of Judgment :::: 28/04/2009. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhanwaroo Khan Mr. L.L. Gupta, Counsel for Claimant-Appellants Mr. V.S. Yadav, Counsel for the Respondent No.2 By the Court : The husband of deceased Smt. Bhonti has filed this miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 22.07.2000 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa for enhancement of the award, wherein an award of Rs.2,27,000/- has been passed in favour of the claimant-appellants. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants pleaded that the deceased Smt. Bhonti was a house-wife 2 of whom the monthly income of Rs.1500/- was decided, which is contrary to what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Lata Wadhwa & Others V. State of Bihar & Others, reported in A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 3218. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has observed that the income of the spouse @ Rs.1200/- per month is grossly low looking to the service rendered by the house-wife and in all modest estimation it should be Rs.3000/- per month for the house-wife, who comes in the age group of 34-49 years. In the instant case, Smt. Bhonri at the time of her death was 35-years of age, so in the light of the above cited judgment her income is fixed as Rs.3000/- per month. The finding of the learned Tribunal while deciding the income as Rs.1200/- per month cannot be sustained in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra). The multiplier of 15, looking to the age of the deceased as 35 years is also not correct and the multiplier 17 is to be applied. The learned counsel for the claimant- appellants also cited 2008 (2) W.L.C. 75-77 (Mr. Ram Pal and Others Vs. Amarjeet Sharma and Others), wherein 3 one third deduction was also denied because the house- wife contributes towards the entire family only and not any other income from any other source. In the case of Rampal (supra), one third deduction was denied. Having this regard treating to be notional income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month, which comes out to be Rs.36000/- per annum and if the multiplier of 17 is applied, the total amount of award comes out to Rs.6,12,000/. The learned Tribunal has grossly erred in determining the award on the basis of notional income of the spouse as Rs.1200/- per month. The claimant-appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,12,000/- as compensation. To this extent, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, by allowing partly this appeal the award is enhanced from Rs.2,27,000/- to Rs.6,12,000/- in total. The claimant-appellants will be entitled for the interest at the same rate, as awarded by the learned Tribunal on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the awarded amount. The liability of the respondents for the enhanced amount will be same as held by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is free to make the distribution of 4 enhanced amount, as per its discretion for which the parties are free to file the application. Consequently, the miscellaneous appeal stands allowed in part, as indicated here-in-above. Bhanwaroo Khan, J. ashok/