Ramachandran Nair, J.

Appeals are filed against the common award of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha granting compensation to the appellant for the death of this wife and for injuries sustained by him in the very same road accident.

2. The appellant, while traveling in a motorbike with his pregnant wife as pillion rider was knocked down by a bus which led to the death of his wife and injury to himself. Separate claims were filed by the appellant, one claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him and another claiming compensation for the death of his wife in the accident. The mother of the deceased got herself impleded as additional 4th respondent in the claim petition filed by the appellant claiming compensation for the death of his wife. The Tribunal awarded compensation in both the cases and by upholding the claim of the additional 4th respondent, namely, the mother of the deceased, a portion of the compensation was ordered to be paid to her. In the separate appeals filed by the appellant claiming enhanced compensation, the mother of the deceased though respondent also claims the same relief.

3. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, Standing counsel for the Insurance Company and counsel appearing or additional 4th respondent, the mother of the deceased.

4. the first contention raised by counsel for the appellate is that the monthly income of the deceased fixed at Rs.2,000/- for fixing compensation is too low and unreasonable because the deceased was admittedly a State Government employee working as Assistant Grade II in the Kerala Public Service Commission. Counsel has produced salary certificate to the effect that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,580/- at the time of the accident. Since salary certificate is a new evidence produced before us, in the normal course, we should remand the matter for the tribunal to consider it after giving an opportunity to the Insurance Company to raise their objection. However, since the employment of the deceased is undisputed and the amount stated in the salary certificate is realistic, we can safely accept it and consequently proceed to decide the case without remanding the same to the Tribunal. Even though appellant is also employed in a company and he may not be dependent on his wife in the strict sense of the word, it is seen that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of dependency based on estimated income of appellants deceased wife is not contested by the Insurance Company. Therefore, it is a matter of substituting the actual income of the deceased with the income fixed by the Tribunal for the purpose of determining compensation for loss of dependency. Consequently compensation for loss of dependency will stand increased from Rs.4,32,000/- to Rs.12,05,280/- and after deducting one-third of the amount towards personal expenses, compensation for loss of dependency will come to Rs.8,03,520/-. Out of the said amount, one-third will be given to the mother of the deceased and the appellant will be entitled to the balance amount.

5. One important issue raised by the appellant in the appeal is that he is entitled to compensation for loss of the foetus on account of the death of his wife. Appellants wife at the time of the accident was admittedly four months pregnant and her death naturally led to the loss of the child which the appellant would have had, had his wife been alive. Since the appellant did not make any specific claim of compensation for loss of the foetus, the Tribunal had no occasion to consider the same. However, we feel when compensation was claimed for the death of a pregnant woman, the Tribunal ought to have taken into account the death of the foetus which automatically happens on the death of the pregnant woman. Decisions of this Court on entitlement of compensation for the death of the foetus are not consistent. Even though the matter is not discussed in detail, this Court in the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rasheed, reported in 2004 (3) ILR 145 referred to a decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in rakesh Kumar and another v. Prem Lal and Other, reported in 1996 A.C.J. 980 wherein that Court held that no separate compensation is payable for loss of foetus. However, we notice that a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 3.10.1994 in M.F.A.No.326 of 1993 granted specific compensation of Rs.30,000/- on account of medical termination of pregnancy of a woman consequent upon a motor accident. In Minati Das v. Laxmidahar Mohanty reported in 1973 A.C.J. 512, the High Court of Orissa held that loss of foetus in a road accident entitles the claimant for compensation. We are unable to uphold the view taken by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and this Court in the decisions above referred that loss of foetus should be taken as an injury sustained by the pregnant woman in the accident. In the first place, foetus is another life in the woman and it comes as a baby in the course of time. Though foetus grows in the body of the woman, it cannot be equated to or considered to be a part of the body of the woman. In effect, loss of the foetus consequent upon the death of the pregnant woman is actually loss of a child in the offing for the husband of the woman. Secondly, there is no scope for considering compensation for the bodily injury of the victim who died in the road accident. Therefore, it would be illogical to grant compensation treating death of the foetus along with the woman dying in the accident treating it as another bodily injury. In our view, compensation to be granted for the death of a pregnant woman in motor accident is for loss of two lives. Therefore, appellant in this case is certainly entitled to claim compensation separately for the loss of his child in the womb of his wife who perished in the accident.

6. Even though distinct and separate claim for compensation under this head was not made before the Tribunal, it would be unjust and inequitable if we do not consider it in appeal more so because we have already expressed our view above that the claim is intrinsically there in all cases of compensation claimed for death of pregnant woman. The next question is the basis of computation of compensation for the death of an unborn baby, which is a difficult job. We feel in this case there is contributory negligence on the part of the appellant for having taken his pregnant wife as a pillion rider in the motorbike which has intrinsic risk in itself. Pregnancy makes a woman infirm and she may not be able to withstand an accident in the way a normal person can. In other words, we are of the view that it is unsafe and risky to permit a pregnant woman to be a pillion rider in a two wheeler, particularly on Kerala roads the condition of most of which are deplorable. In fact there will be nothing strange even if the woman survives the accident, but the child in the womb is lost.

7. Considering all these and in view of the substantial compensation awarded to the appellant for loss of his wife, we award a nominal compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant separately for loss of the foetus. We feel the loss of the foetus is a loss to the mother of the deceased as well because, but for the death of her pregnant daughter, she would have had a grand child. We, therefore, award Rs.5,000/- to the mother of the deceased also as compensation under this head.

8. So far as the claim for enhancement of compensation in M.A.C.A.No.1402 of 2005 is concerned, on going through the award, we do not find any reason for interfering with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal because the injuries sustained by the appellant has not led to any permanent disability and the Tribunal has granted adequate compensation.

In the result, we dismiss M.A.C.A.No.1402 of 2005 and allow M.A.C.A.No.1367 of 2005 to the extent indicated above with a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the additional compensation with interest at 7% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.