JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (for short “the Tribunal” in Suit No. 399/1984, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 54,000/-.
2. The facts of this case, as has been noted by the Tribunal, are as under :
“Petitioners’ case is that on 22.5.1984 at about 7.00 P.M., deceased was traveling by bus No. DLP-743 and while she was getting down from the bus, the bus driver suddenly started the bus without caring whether she has got down or not as a result thereof, deceased fell down on the road and later on died.
3. Deceased was aged 35 years and was working in different houses as petty worker and was earning Rs. 300/- per month plus free boarding. After death of deceased, Petitioner No. 1 his husband, unable to keep his eldest daughter with him who is aged about 16 years and she is putting up with her maternal grant mother in the village. The deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus Driver-Respondent No. 2 and the bus is owned by Respondent by Respondent No. 1.”
3. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that in view of the development of law on the point of awarding compensation, the Supreme Court has laid down in Lata Wadhwa and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors that in case of a death of a housewife within the age group of 34 to 59 years, the modest estimation of Rs. 3,000/- per month as earning should be taken as guideline. He contends that even though in Lata Wadha’s case (supra) the matter was not under the Motor Vehicles Act, yet the Supreme Court in The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Anr. [ JT 2003 (8) 108 ] has held that the same is a good guideline while computing the claim in case of housewife/child in cases under the Motor Vehicles Act. He also draws my attention to the judgment of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamsher Singh and Ors. [2003 ACJ 742], where the principal in Lata Wadhwa’s case (supra) has been applied in the case of fatal accident under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the alternative, counsel submits that this court in case being FAO 8 of 1989, titled as Amar Singh Thukral and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Chatwal and Anr., dated 5th July, 2004, has applied the principal of minimum wages and a formula given in another judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit and Anr. Vs. Balwant Yadav and Ors. [1996 ACJ 581]. He contends that if the first argument does not find favor, then the court ought to be guided by the judgment in Amar Singh Thukral’s case (supra).
4. Counsel for the respondent-DTC strongly refutes this submission of counsel for the appellant. He submits that in a case where wages are known the concept of minimum wages cannot be resorted to nor is it permissible to apply the formula of Lata Wadhwa’s case (supra).
5. Heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment under challenge as also the above-cited judgments. It appears to me that the Supreme Court has enlarged the scope of award of damages in cases under the Motor Vehicles Act in The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Anr. [ JT 2003 (8) 108 ] by extending the judgment in Lata Wadhwa’s case (supra) to cases under the Motor Vehicles Act. In Lata Wadhwa’s case the Supreme Court has categorically laid down that Rs. 3,000/- per month ought to be adopted as guideline in the case of housewife within the age group of 34 to 59 years. The law having crystalised in Lata Wadhwa’s case (supra), I see no reason why there should be any departure from the same. Drawing the a alogy from the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamsher Singh and Ors. [2003 ACJ 742] has applied the law so laid down, which to my mind, is perfectly good law. The role of the house-wife in running a house is not that of rendering services as a slave. Her contribution to keeping the family together, providing household services besides matrimonial duties, cannot be treated lightly. It has got nothing to do with the earning capacity of the husband which is an addition to what is taken care of by the house-wife. No matter, what the status of the family may be, the contribution of the house-wife towards household must be treated to be at minimum Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand per month for an age group of 34-59 years, as has been laid by the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa’s case (sura). The deemed earning of other age groups has also been dealt with by the Supreme Court and would certainly be good guideline in considering the claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.
6. In that view of the matter, it would be proper to recalculate the compensation on the basis that the deceased housewife was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month. I will not take into consideration Rs. 300/- in addition thereto. I am mindful of the fact that the claim made by the claimant was on a lower side, yet the judgment of this court in Amar Singh Thukral’s case (supra) has held that there is no bar in awarding an amount higher than what is claimed. The appropriate procedure to follow while warding an amount higher than what is claimed would be to insist on a formal amendment of the claim petition. However, in a given case, if there is evidence on record to justify it, a higher amount may be awarded even without a formal amendment to the claim petition. In the present case, since the formula is laid down by the Supreme Court itself, I see no difficulty in awarding an amount higher than that was claimed. The award amount would, accordingly, be Rs. 3,000/- X 12, that is, Rs. 36,000/- and to this a multiplier of 16 is being applied and 1/3rd be deducted towards personal expenses. The total amount comes to Rs. 3,84,000/-. This amount shall cover the compensation under all other available heads. The DTC is directed to pay the additional amount within ten weeks from today. In the event the additional amount is not paid by that time, the same shall carry an interest @6% from the date of filing of the appeal till the realization. The impugned judgment is modified accordingly. FAO 196/1989 is allowed to that extent and disposed of.