JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the Award dated 3.12.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in M.A.C. Petition No. 0000077 of 2014, whereby learned Tribunal below held respondents No.1 to 3-claimants (hereinafter, 'claimants') entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,57,000/- (Rs.4,32,000/- on account of loss of income, Rs. 25,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- as loss of consortium) alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. Vide aforesaid Award, learned Tribunal below also held that appellant-Insurance Company being insurer of the ill-fated vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of respondent No.3 (owner of the vehicle) and held that in case, subsequently the appellant-Insurance Company succeeds in proving that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, then in that eventuality, it would be at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount alongwith interest from respondent No.3. 2. For having bird's eye view, facts as emerge from the record are that the claimants being legal heirs of deceased Smt. Sunder Devi, approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below by way of petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till payment of the entire compensation amount. Claimants averred that on 16.11.2011, deceased Sunder Devi was traveling in a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-26A-0905 owned by respondent No. 4, Sunil Kumar. Claimants further claimed that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver and as such, he lost control over the vehicle and it went down the road and rolled into river Sutlej, resulting into death of Sunder Devi. Claimants averred that the deceased was a housewife and was the only bread earner of the family. It is further averred that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and due to her death, claimants have been deprived of their bread earner. 3. Claimants averred that the deceased was a housewife and was the only bread earner of the family. It is further averred that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and due to her death, claimants have been deprived of their bread earner. 3. Respondent No. 4-Sunil Kumar, owner of the vehicle, while acknowledging the factum with regard to accident, denied that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. Aforesaid respondent also raised plea that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle alongwith ration articles and specifically denied that she was bread earner of the family and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from agriculture/horticulture. Respondent No. 4 also claimed before the learned Tribunal below that since the vehicle stands insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, it is liable to indemnify him, in case the learned Tribunal below comes to the conclusion that claimants are entitled to compensation on account of death of the deceased. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company opposed the claim of the claimants on the ground that the vehicle was being plied by respondent No. 4 in violation of terms and conditions of the policy and at the relevant time and the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. Appellant-Insurance Company further denied that at the time of accident, deceased was 56 years of age and was deriving income from agriculture/horticulture and claimed that the deceased was traveling as an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger, as such, it (appellant-Insurance Company) can not be held liable to indemnify respondent No. 4, for the compensation, if any, to be paid to the claimants. 5. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following issues on 1.3.2016: "1. Whether Smt. Har Dassi had died in motor accident on account of rash and negligent driving of Bolero Camper No. HP-26A-0905, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR-2 4. Whether the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, as alleged? OPR-2. 5. Whether the offending vehicle at the relevant time was being plied without fitness certificate and valid registration certificate, as alleged? Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR-2 4. Whether the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, as alleged? OPR-2. 5. Whether the offending vehicle at the relevant time was being plied without fitness certificate and valid registration certificate, as alleged? OPR-2. 6. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time was not holding valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR-2. 7. Whether the deceased at the relevant time was traveling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger, as alleged? OPR-2. 8. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No.1 as alleged? OPR-2. 9. Relief." 6. Subsequently, the learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition vide Award dated 3.12.2016 and held claimants entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,57,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of institution of petition till the payment of entire compensation amount. In the aforesaid background, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the impugned Award being contrary to the provisions of Act as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this court is not persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that the Award passed by learned Tribunal below is not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence adduced on record, rather this Court is convinced and satisfied that the learned Tribunal below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and has passed the Award on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence. Onus to prove that the vehicle in question was being plied at the time of accident in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, was upon the appellant-Insurance Company and if the evidence led on record by the respective parties is perused carefully, it clearly suggests that appellant-Insurance Company failed to discharge the said onus and as such, learned Tribunal below rightly decided aforesaid issue against the appellant-Insurance Company. Similarly, this Court finds that the appellant-Insurance Company was unable to prove on record that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. 9. True it is that the appellant-Insurance Company, took a stand that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle was having two licences issued by different licensing authorities, but if the evidence led on record by the appellant-Insurance Company in this regard is perused/examined carefully, there is considerable force in the argument of Mr. Raj Negi, learned counsel representing the claimants that there is no evidence except bald statement of RW-1, Ramesh Chander that the driver was not possessing a valid driving licence. RW-1 Ramesh Chander tendered in evidence, Ext. RW-1/D, copy of letter dated 13.12.2012 issued by Registering and Licensing Authority, Pangi at Killar, District Chamba and Ext. RW-1/E, copy of letter dated 6.12.2012 sent by Investigator of appellant-Insurance Company to the District Transport Officer, Imphal, Manipur and reply in the form of endorsement made thereon by the Transport Authority. Perusal of Ext. RW-1/D suggests that the Registering and Licensing Authority had certified that the licence issued in favour of Anil Kumar son of Kehar Singh was in respect of Light Motor Vehicle and it was valid with effect from 11.5.2005 to 10.5.2010. As per Ext. RW-1/E, driving licence issued in favour of the above named deceased was valid from 27.4.2011 to 26.4.2014 and deceased was authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle. Ext. RW-1/E shows that driving licence was issued on 27.4.2011 i.e. after six years from the date of issuance of earlier driving licence issued by Registering and Licensing Authority, Pangi at Killar. 10. Leaving everything aside, appellant-Insurance Company, with a view to prove the contents of letter Ext. RW-1/E dated 6.12.2012 sent by the investigator of the appellant-Insurance Company, to the District Transport Authority, Imphal, Manipur, neither examined any official of Registering and Licensing Authority Pangi at Killar nor any official from the office of District Transport Authority, Impahl, Manipur and as such, argument having been advanced by Mr. RW-1/E dated 6.12.2012 sent by the investigator of the appellant-Insurance Company, to the District Transport Authority, Imphal, Manipur, neither examined any official of Registering and Licensing Authority Pangi at Killar nor any official from the office of District Transport Authority, Impahl, Manipur and as such, argument having been advanced by Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that since two driving licences are shown to have been issued by different authorities, it is to be presumed that there was no valid and effective driving licence, deserves outright rejection because, admittedly, there is no dispute that during the period when the alleged accident occurred, vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and driver of the vehicle in question was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. 11. Question, whether driver having licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle is competent to drive a Light Transport Vehicle, has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, wherein, it has been specifically held that Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold driving licence with respect to 'class' of vehicle and not with respect to the 'type' of vehicle. Aforesaid judgment has also been taken note by this Court in FAO No. 153 of 2014 titled Kamal Devi vs. Tulsi Ram and Others, decided on 12.9.2017, as such, argument of Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company, that the driver of the vehicle was not competent to drive the vehicle in question, is not tenable. 12. Careful perusal of the evidence available on record vis-a-vis impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below, nowhere suggests that the appellant-Insurance Company was able to prove that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident as a gratuitous/unauthorized passenger, rather, evidence clearly suggests that the deceased was traveling in the ill-fated vehicle alongwith goods. 13. True it is that the claimants have not pleaded specifically in the petition that the deceased was carrying some ration in the vehicle but if the reply having been filed by the owner of the vehicle (respondent No. 4 is seen, it clearly suggests that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle alongwith her ration articles. 13. True it is that the claimants have not pleaded specifically in the petition that the deceased was carrying some ration in the vehicle but if the reply having been filed by the owner of the vehicle (respondent No. 4 is seen, it clearly suggests that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle alongwith her ration articles. PW-1, while deposing before the learned Tribunal below stated that the deceased was also transporting some ration articles and wool and for that purpose he had hired the vehicle. In his cross-examination, he specifically denied the suggestion put to him that the aforesaid story is concocted one. No doubt, there is no specific averment in the claim petition filed by the claimants to the effect that at the time of accident, deceased was carrying ration articles/wool but is quite apparent from the reply having been filed by respondent No. 4 as well as statement given by PW-1 that deceased had hired vehicle in question for transporting some ration articles and wool and as such, learned Tribunal below rightly arrived at a conclusion that strict rule of pleadings can not be made applicable to the proceedings of present nature. 14. Though, in the case at hand, appellant-Insurance Company, with a view to prove its contention that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger also placed reliance upon Ext. RW-1/C, copy of form of motor claim preferred by respondent No. 4 with regard to damage caused to his vehicle, wherein answer has been mentioned as "No" to the query with regard to weight of goods carried in the vehicle, but, if the cross-examination conducted upon RW-1, is perused, he specifically denied the suggestion put to him that no ration articles were being transported at the time of accident. Though this witness denied that ration articles and wool were not found by the police on the spot and the police in its report had mentioned that deceased had taken lift in this vehicle but it is not in dispute that all the occupants of the vehicle had expired and as such, there was none left to throw light on the aforesaid aspect of the matter. It is also not in dispute that PW-1 was not traveling in the vehicle at the relevant time. 15. It is also not in dispute that PW-1 was not traveling in the vehicle at the relevant time. 15. Otherwise also, there is no evidence led on record by the appellant-Insurance Company that the ill-fated vehicle was not hired by the deceased, rather RW-1, while deposing before the learned Tribunal below made an attempt to prove the contents of RW-1/C by stating that investigating agency had also come to the conclusion that the deceased had taken lift in the vehicle in question but there is no evidence led on record by the appellant-Insurance Company to prove aforesaid aspect of the matter, neither record, if any, from the concerned investigating agency is led on record to prove the factum with regard to deceased having taken lift in the vehicle, has been produced nor steps, if any, were taken by the appellant-Insurance Company to examine Investigating Officer with respect to aforesaid aspect of the matter and as such, learned Tribunal below rightly rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the deceased was traveling in the ill-fated vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 16. Otherwise also, as has been taken note above, the learned Tribunal below while passing impugned award, has categorically held that in case appellant-Insurance Company is able to prove, in the appropriate proceedings, that the deceased was traveling in the ill-fated vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, it can recover necessary compensation from respondent No. 4 i.e. owner of the vehicle. 17. It is not in dispute that deceased was aged 56 years at the time of alleged accident, as is evident from Ext. PW-1/C, wherein year of birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 1955. Learned Tribunal below, taking note of the fact that the deceased was a housewife, took her monthly income as Rs. 6,000/- per month in light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that due to devaluation in rupee, double of notional income of a non-earning person as given in the Schedule annexed to the Motor Vehicles Act as Rs. 15,000/- could be considered as Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Learned Tribunal below while taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- could be considered as Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Learned Tribunal below while taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- also took into consideration law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State of Bihar & Ors, (2001) AIR SC 3218, wherein income of the deceased housewife was treated at minimum of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal below has erred, while taking monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- because monthly income of deceased could not be taken more than Rs. 3,000/- per month. Mr. Thakur further contended that judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishan Gopal is not applicable in the present case because in that case, Hon'ble Court was dealing with a case of a minor. Mr. Thakur also placed reliance upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar, (2015) 4 SCC 237 , to suggest that considering the nature of work and evidence of claimants' witnesses, learned Tribunal below could not have taken monthly income of deceased more than Rs. 3,000/- per month. 18. Having carefully perused the reasoning rendered on record by the learned Tribunal below, while taking monthly income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal below ought not have taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-, especially when there is no evidence led on record by the claimants suggestive of the fact that the deceased was earning some money per month from agricultural or horticultural pursuits. Learned Tribunal below having perused evidence led on record by the claimants has categorically held that there is no corroborative evidence led on record to enable it to agree with the contention that the deceased was carrying agricultural or horticultural pursuits and that she was earning income, as pleaded by the claimants. In Lata Wadhwa, Hon'ble Apex Court considering the fact that the deceased was a housewife, took her monthly income per month at Rs. 3,000/- but learned Tribunal below applying the analogy that since 15 years have gone/passed after passing of the judgment in Lata Wadhwa, deceased can be said to be earning Rs. In Lata Wadhwa, Hon'ble Apex Court considering the fact that the deceased was a housewife, took her monthly income per month at Rs. 3,000/- but learned Tribunal below applying the analogy that since 15 years have gone/passed after passing of the judgment in Lata Wadhwa, deceased can be said to be earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, which finding returned by learned Tribunal below does not appear to be plausible. 19. Hon'ble Apex Court in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi has held that it is hard to monetize the domestic work done by a house-mother. Services of mother/wife are available twenty four hours. Her duties are never fixed. Contribution made by a wife to the house is invaluable and same can not be computed in terms of money. Court has further held that a house-wife/home-maker does not work by the clock and she is in constant attendance of the family throughout and such service rendered by the home maker has to be necessarily kept in view while calculating the loss of dependency and thus Hon'ble Apex Court proceeded to fix the income of deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. In Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "9. As noticed earlier, tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- whereas the High Court has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,350/- per month. As observed by the tribunal, embroidery work, stitching work and local traditional embroidery work was doing well in the district of Kachchh and there was good earning. Considering the nature of the work and the evidence of claimants' witnesses-father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, had the deceased Jayvantiben been alive she would have earned not less than Rs. 3,000/- per month. 10. Even assuming Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi was not self-employed doing embroidery and tailoring work, the fact remains that she was a housewife and a home maker. It is hard to monetize the domestic work done by a housemother. The services of the mother/wife is available 24 hours and her duties are never fixed. Courts have recognized the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of money. It is hard to monetize the domestic work done by a housemother. The services of the mother/wife is available 24 hours and her duties are never fixed. Courts have recognized the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of money. A house-wife/home-maker does not work by the clock and she is in constant attendance of the family throughout and such services rendered by the home maker has to be necessarily kept in view while calculating the loss of dependency. Thus even otherwise, taking deceased Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi as the home maker, it is reasonable to fix her income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. 11. Recognizing the services of the home maker and that domestic services have to be recognized in terms of money, in Arun Kumar Agrawal & Another. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others., this Court has held as under:- "The alternative to imputing money values is to measure the time taken to produce these services and compare these with the time that is taken to produce goods and services which are commercially viable. One has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered by women in the household sustain a supply of labour to the economy and keep human societies going by weaving the social fabric and keeping it in good repair. If we take these services for granted and do not attach any value to this, this may escalate the unforeseen costs in terms of deterioration of both human capabilities and social fabric. Household work performed by women throughout India is more than US $612.8 billion per year (Evangelical Social Action Forum and Health Bridge, p.17). We often forget that the time spent by women in doing household work as homemakers is the time which they can devote to paid work or to their education. This lack of sensitiveness and recognition of their work mainly contributes to women's high rate of poverty and their consequential oppression in society, as well as various physical, social and psychological problems. The courts and tribunals should do well to factor these considerations in assessing compensation for housewives who are victims of road accidents and quantifying the amount in the name of fixing "just compensation"." 20. The courts and tribunals should do well to factor these considerations in assessing compensation for housewives who are victims of road accidents and quantifying the amount in the name of fixing "just compensation"." 20. If the reasoning assigned by the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid case is applied in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal below while considering income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month does not hold good because learned Tribunal below has held that since in Lata Wadhwa, Hon'ble Apex Court had ordered that in case of housewife, her contribution to household must be treated at a minimum of Rs. 3,000/- per month, accordingly, income of household wife after fifteen years of passing of aforesaid judgment can be considered at Rs. 6,000/- per month, which reasoning does not appear to be plausible, especially in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi. 21. Without going into aforesaid controversy, in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the claimants have claimed that deceased was earning money from horticulture and agriculture, deceased can be said to be a skilled worker and as such, this Court deems it fit to take into consideration minimum wages prevalent in the year 2011, when alleged accident took place. It is not in dispute that in the year 2011, minimum wage of skilled labour was Rs. 151/- per day as such, this Court holds that the contribution of deceased towards household was Rs. 4,500/- per month. 22. This court finds that no addition has been made to future loss of dependency/income by the learned Tribunal below while placing reliance upon judgment rendered in Sarla Verma's case but Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) AIR SC 5157, has held that where deceased was 50-60 years of age, an addition of 10% of the established income should be made. Relevant paragraphs of aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below: "47. In our considered opinion, if the same is followed, it shall subserve the cause of justice and the unnecessary contest before the tribunals and the courts would be avoided. 48. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Santosh Devi, the two-Judge Bench followed the traditional method and granted Rs. 48. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Santosh Devi, the two-Judge Bench followed the traditional method and granted Rs. 5,000/- for transportation of the body, Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- as regards the loss of consortium. In Sarla Verma, the Court granted Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of Consortium. In Rajesh, the Court granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It also granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The Court enhanced the same on the principle that a formula framed to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socioeconomic issue has to be contrasted from a legal principle and ought to be periodically revisited as has been held in Santosh Devi. On the principle of revisit, it fixed different amount on conventional heads. What weighed with the Court is factum of inflation and the price index. It has also been moved by the concept of loss of consortium. We are inclined to think so, for what it states in that regard. We quote:- "17. ... In legal parlance, "consortium" is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium." 60. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts. 61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." 23. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, deceased was 56 years and having a family consisting of three members as such, learned Tribunal below rightly applied factor of 9 to assess compensation payable to the petitioners and correctly deducted 1/3rd out of monthly income of deceased towards personal living expenses while calculating compensation payable to the claimants on account of death of the deceased. Besides this, in view of law laid down Pranay Sethi an addition to 10% to the established income of the deceased is also required to be made and thus, the total loss of dependency can be calculated as follows: Income of the deceased Rs.4500/- Addition of 10% Rs.4500 x 10% = Rs. Besides this, in view of law laid down Pranay Sethi an addition to 10% to the established income of the deceased is also required to be made and thus, the total loss of dependency can be calculated as follows: Income of the deceased Rs.4500/- Addition of 10% Rs.4500 x 10% = Rs. 450/- Total income Rs.4950/- 1/3rd Deduction Rs.4950/- x 1/3rd = Rs. 1650/- Net Income Rs.3300/- per month (Rs.39600/- per annum) After applying multiplier of 9 Rs.3,56,400 24. So far grant of consortium to respondent No.1 on account of death of his wife is concerned, learned Tribunal below has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the aforesaid head which in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, ought to have been Rs. 40,000/- and as such, this Court deems it fit to modify the amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium to Rs. 40,000/- and as such, award under challenge is further modified to the extent of grant of loss of consortium. Under the head of funeral charges also, this court is of the view that amount has been awarded on higher side, which deserves to be modified and as such, same deserves to be modified to Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/-. 25. Learned counsel for the claimants have raised another issue i.e. no amount has been granted under the head of loss of estate and as such this Court also deems it fit to grant an amount of Rs. 15,000/- under the head of 'loss of estate'. 26. Otherwise also, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash and Others vs. Divisional Manager and another, (2011) 14 SCC 639 , has held that amount of compensation can be enhanced by an appellate court, while exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. It would be profitable to reproduce following para of the judgment herein:- "Order 41 Rule 33 CPC enables an appellate court to pass any order which ought to have been passed by the trial court and to make such further or other order as the case may require, even if the respondent had not filed any appeal or cross-objections. This power is entrusted to the appellate court to enable it to do complete justice between the parties. This power is entrusted to the appellate court to enable it to do complete justice between the parties. Order 41 Rule 33 CPC can be pressed into service to make the award more effective or maintain the award on other grounds or to make the other parties to litigation to share the benefits or the liability, but cannot be invoked to get a larger or higher relief. For example, where the claimants seek compensation against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle and the tribunal makes the award only against the owner, on an appeal by the owner challenging the quantum, the appellate court can make the insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, alongwith the owner, even though the claimants had not challenged the non-grant of relief against the insurer." 27. Consequently, in view of aforesaid modification made herein above, respondents No.1 to 3/claimants are held entitled to following amounts under various heads: 1. Loss of dependency Rs.3,56,400/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 4. Funeral charges Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.4,26,400/- 28. This Court however does not see any reason to interfere with the rate of interest awarded on the amount of compensation and as such, same is upheld. Apportionment shall remain as has been made by the learned Tribunal below. Amount under the head of loss of consortium shall be payable to respondent No.1 only. Costs as awarded by the learned Tribunal below are also upheld. 29. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present appeal is partly allowed and Award dated 3.12.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in M.A.C. Petition No. 0000077 of 2014, is modified to the above extent only. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.