JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant appeal under S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) is directed against the Award dated 8.9.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, HP in MAC Petition No. 40-S/2 of 2012, whereby appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,30,600/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till deposit, to respondents No.1 to 4/claimants (hereinafter, ‘claimants’). 2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that the claimants, claiming themselves to be legal heirs of deceased Ramesh Chand, filed a claim petition under S. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying therein for grant of compensation on account of death of Ramesh Chand, who was driving a Maruti car bearing registration No. HP-09A-2934, which unfortunately met with an accident at place Gazeri, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh on 29.12.2009 at about 4.00 pm. Ramesh Chand suffered multiple injuries in the accident and died on the spot. Claimants specifically averred in the claim petition that the monthly income of the deceased Ramesh Chand was about Rs.3,000/- per month and they being his son, daughter and parents were dependent upon the income of the deceased, as such, entitled to compensation on account of death of Ramesh Chand. 3. Respondent No.5, Sunita Devi, refuted the claim of the claimants and averred that the vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and as such, it was the insurance company, which was liable to compensate the claimants. Aforesaid respondent further claimed that since damage of the vehicle in question was settled by the insurance company, there was no breach of policy. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company contested the claim petition having been filed by the claimants on the ground of maintainability and claimed that the deceased Ramesh Chand was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such, it is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal below framed following issues on 26.2.2015 for determination: “1. Whether deceased Ramesh Chand died in the accident involving vehicle no. HP-09A-2934, as alleged? ...OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal below framed following issues on 26.2.2015 for determination: “1. Whether deceased Ramesh Chand died in the accident involving vehicle no. HP-09A-2934, as alleged? ...OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? ...OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? ...OPR-2 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? ...OPR-2 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? ...OPR-2 6. Whether the present petition is filed in collusion with respondent no.1, as alleged? ...OPR-2 7. Relief.” 6. Subsequently, the learned Tribunal below, on the basis of the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, allowed the claim petition vide award dated 8.9.2015 and held appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,30,600/- to the claimants, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. In the aforesaid ground, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for setting aside the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. At the very outset, it may be noticed that the learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company fairly submitted that though Award was initially challenged on two grounds i.e. (a) claim petition was not maintainable at the behest of the legal heirs of the person, whose rash and negligent driving had resulted into the accident; and (b) learned Tribunal below erred in granting 30% increase on account of future prospects while calculating the compensation, however, in view of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil & Anr., 2018 ACJ 1 , first ground is rendered infructuous and as such he shall confine his arguments to the second ground only i.e. learned Tribunal below having acted beyond its jurisdiction while granting 30% increase on account of future prospects, because, there is no such provision under S. 163A of the Act, wherein a complete structure formula has been provided for granting compensation. 9. 9. Since, controversy with regard to maintainability of the petition having been filed on behalf of legal heirs of the person, whose rash and negligent driving has resulted into accident, has been set at rest by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil & Anr. (supra), this court shall not elaborate upon aforesaid issue and shall confine discussion to the second issue only i.e. grant of 30% addition on account of future prospects. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the claimants fairly stated that the award passed by learned Tribunal below to this extent requires to be modified. 10. Careful perusal of 2nd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, as referred to in S. 163A of the Act, nowhere provides for grant of any increase on account of future prospects and as such, learned Tribunal below has definitely erred in granting 30% increase to future prospects, while calculating compensation on account of death of Ramesh Chand and as such, total loss of dependency, would be as follows: Established/proved monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000 1/3rd deduction Rs.3,000 - Rs.1,000 Net income for the purpose of loss of dependency Rs.2,000 per month Annual loss of income Rs.24,000 Total loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 13 = 24,000 x 13 Rs.3,12,000/- 11. Similarly, this court finds that the learned Tribunal below, while awarding amount under the head of ‘funeral charges’ has awarded excessive amount because as per 2nd Schedule as referred to above, a sum of Rs.2,000/- could have been awarded, whereas, learned Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, which also needs to be modified. 12. However, no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of estate and as such, this court deems it proper to award an amount of Rs.2,000/- under the head of loss of estate. 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. 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. 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.” 13. Consequently, in view of aforesaid modification made herein above, claimants are held entitled to following amounts under various heads: 1. Loss of dependency - Rs.3,12,000/- 2. Loss of estate - Rs.2,500/- 3. Funeral charges - Rs.2,000/- Total - Rs.3,16,500/- 14. Apportionment of awarded amount amongst the claimants shall remain as determined by the learned Tribunal below. 15. This Court however does not see any reason to interfere with the rate of interest awarded on the amount of compensation and multiplier applied, and as such, same are upheld. 16. 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 8.9.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, HP in MAC Petition No. 40-S/2 of 2012, is modified to the aforesaid extent only. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.