HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2223 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The claimants in O.P.No.578 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda are the appellants herein. The claim was made for a sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs consequent on the death of the deceased Nirmala in a motor accident on 27.04.2002 while traveling in an auto, a lorry AET 7701 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto. As a result of which, she died. The first petitioner is the husband. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. The deceased was said to be earning Rs.3000/- per month as a tailor and consequently, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurance company and both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. First respondent remained ex parte and second respondent filed a counter denying the rashness and negligence attributed to the driver of the lorry. For the earning capacity of the deceased and the dependents of the petitioners, the lower tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.2,03,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the lower tribunal is just and reasonable? Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants contends that the lower Court erred in applying the provisions of the second schedule of Section 163 of the M.V.Act, when the claim was made under Section 166 of M.V.Act. According to him, as per the decision reported in LATA WADHWA v.STATE OF BIHAR[1], the minimum contribution of the services of the wife to the family are fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month and in this case, even though the fact that the deceased was earning as a tailor is not proved, the tribunal should have considered the same. The decision relied on by the counsel for the appellants is only a guide and it does not lay down a law. In all such cases, the contribution should be fixed at Rs.3,000/-per month. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts and also the claim of the petitioners and as the first petitioner is also aged about 40 years, I feel the ends of justice would meet if the contribution of services of the deceased is fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month to the family and out of it, 1/3rd has to be deducted and consequently, the contribution to the family can be fixed at Rs.1400/- per month and the annual contribution comes to Rs.16,800/- and by applying multiplier ‘17’, the total dependency comes to Rs.2,85,600/-. Added to that, the petitioners would be entitled to non-pecuniary damages of Rs.10,000/- and as the first petitioner lost his wife, he is entitled to a further sum of Rs.,10,000/- towards loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.3,000/- is granted towards funeral expenses as granted by the lower Court. The petitioners would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,08,600/- rounded up to Rs.3,10,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. ______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 27th October, 2011 Rns [1] (2001)8 SCC 197