JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellants-Conservator of Forest, S.F.P. Monitoring and Evaluation Circle, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi and Conservator of Forest, Territorial Circle, Medininagar, Palamau, have jointly preferred this miscellaneous appeal against the award dated 25.7.2016 passed in Compensation Case No. 298 of 2013, by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,05,000 to be paid through the account payee cheque in the joint name of both the applicants, namely, Rameshwar Baitha and Chinta Devi within 30 days with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the case, i.e., 6.12.2013 till realization of the amount. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the deceased was a minor boy who was driving a motor cycle, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation amount, as such the impugned award may be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC), father cannot be dependent upon his son and relevant paras 9 and 15 are profitably quoted hereunder: "(9) Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay (15) Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father " 4. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submission has further relied upon the case of Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) ACJ 2782 (SC). 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that this court has issued notice to the appellants regarding enhancement of the award vide order dated 6.7.2019, though in absence of any cross-appeal preferred by the claimants, the same cannot be enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in such view of the matter, the notice for enhancement is fit to be set aside and in support of that he has referred to the judgment decided in the case of Ranjana Prakash v. D.M., New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2011) ACJ 2418 (SC). Para 7 thereof reads as follows: "(7) This principle also flows from Order 41, rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure which 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 of the Code can however 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. Order 41, rule 33 of the Code can however 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, along with the owner, even though the claimants had not challenged the non-grant of relief against the insurer. Be that as it may." 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied on the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) ACJ 2700 (SC). Paras 57, 58, 61 (iii) and 61 (iv) thereof are reproduced hereunder: "(57) Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The concept of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the deceased cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the Tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, 'just compensation'. The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma, (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari, (2013) ACJ 1253 (SC). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma, (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari, (2013) ACJ 1253 (SC). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The Tribunal and the courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the Tribunal and the courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this court for standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardisation keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of 'standardisation' so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age. (58) The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who were self-employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma, (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC), has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category. (61) (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50 per cent 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 per cent, if the age of the deceased was between 40 and 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years, the addition should be 15 per cent. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (61) (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (61) (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 40 and 50 years and 10 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component." 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, has submitted that even though the claimants have not filed any cross-appeal because of the paucity of money, yet claimants cannot be deprived from fair and just compensation on the ground that no cross-appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his submission has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) ACJ 2430 (SC), para 11 of which is profitably quoted hereinbelow: "(11) Taking the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the deceased (Satish) first, as mentioned earlier, they did not file any appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal determining the compensation amount payable to them at Rs. 4,53,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. It is respondent No. 1-insurance company who had challenged the award in favour of the claimants and in those appeals, the claimants (including appellants in CA No. 9078 of 2017) filed cross-objections which, however, came to be dismissed for non-removal of office objections. Nevertheless, the High Court enhanced the compensation amount payable to them by invoking power under Order 41, rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Nevertheless, the High Court enhanced the compensation amount payable to them by invoking power under Order 41, rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The insurance company has not challenged the said view taken by the High Court as it has already succeeded in getting a finding from the High Court that the liability to pay compensation amount was restricted to that of the owner of offending vehicle, namely, respondent No. 2 herein." Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his submission has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar, (2015) ACJ 708 (SC), para 13 of which is profitably quoted hereinbelow: "(13) The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,24,000 as against the same the claimants have not filed any appeal. As against the award passed by the Tribunal when the claimants have not filed any appeal, the question arises whether the income of the deceased could be increased and compensation could be enhanced. In terms of section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the courts/Tribunals are to pass awards determining the amount of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by the legal standards. The power of the courts in awarding reasonable compensation was emphasised by this court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) ACJ 12 (SC); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir, (2009) ACJ 2742 (SC) and Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) ACJ 2020 (SC). As against the award passed by the Tribunal even though the claimants have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of courts/Tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, it is appropriate to increase the compensation." 8. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his submission has placed reliance on the case of Shivakumar M. v. Managing Director, BMTC, CA No. 2828 of 2017; decided on 14.2.2017 (SC). In the aforesaid case, the dispute with regard to the income of the person has been decided. Paras 7 to 9 of Shivakumar M. (supra) are profitably quoted hereinbelow: "(7) No doubt, there was no evidence available with regard to the income of the appellant but there is no dispute on the fact that he was a painter by profession. The accident happened in the year 2013 when he was living in Bangalore, Karnataka. Paras 7 to 9 of Shivakumar M. (supra) are profitably quoted hereinbelow: "(7) No doubt, there was no evidence available with regard to the income of the appellant but there is no dispute on the fact that he was a painter by profession. The accident happened in the year 2013 when he was living in Bangalore, Karnataka. (8) For a casual worker, who goes from house to house and place to place doing his painting work, it is difficult to get any evidence, since there is no employer. He does his daily work, sometimes piece rated work as well. That is why he made a moderate self-estimation of his income between Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 16,500. (9) In the absence of any serious dispute on the part of the respondent on the avocation and income, we are of the view that the Tribunal and for that matter the High Court should have accepted the evidence of the appellant. Therefore, we assess his monthly income as Rs. 15,000 and after deducting one-third for his personal expenses, the income will be assessed for the purpose of computation of compensation as Rs. 10,000 per month. The income is substituted as Rs. 10,000 in the place of Rs. 6,500, as assessed by the High Court. The compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition before the Tribunal. Rest of the award is maintained." Learned counsel for the respondents has thus submitted that in the present case claimants have also submitted that the earnings of the deceased were Rs. 5,000 per month from the business of agriculture but in absence of any proof, the Tribunal has considered the deceased as non-earning person. For calculation of loss of dependency, notional income of Rs. 30,000 per annum has been taken into consideration. The above cited case, i.e., Shivakumar M. (supra) is on similar issue, wherein the deceased being a painter by profession suffered injuries in an accident and claimed monthly income between Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 16,500, the Tribunal has decided the same to be Rs. 5,500, in appeal the High Court has assessed the same to be Rs. 6,500. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the same to be Rs. 15,000 and after deducting amount towards his personal expenses, the income has been assessed for the purpose of computation as Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 16,500, the Tribunal has decided the same to be Rs. 5,500, in appeal the High Court has assessed the same to be Rs. 6,500. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the same to be Rs. 15,000 and after deducting amount towards his personal expenses, the income has been assessed for the purpose of computation as Rs. 10,000 per month, as such in the present case also, the income of the deceased ought to have been considered. As such in view of the judgment of Shivakumar M. (supra) this court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income, which is a meagre amount. In absence of any proof of the income the Tribunal has considered the same to be notional income of Rs. 30,000 per annum. 9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that notional income has been considered to be Rs. 100 per day though the claimants have claimed the earnings of the deceased from business/agriculture to the tune of Rs. 5,000 but in absence of any evidence brought on record, the court has considered notional income of Rs. 30,000 per annum, which is less than Rs. 100 per day. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that an unskilled worker gets daily wages to the tune of Rs. 249.50 as published by the Department of Labour, Government of Jharkhand, as such the Tribunal who has considered notional income to be Rs. 30,000 per annum is not just and fair. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the year 2013, the prevalent wage of unskilled labourer as issued and published by the Department of Labour, Government of Jharkhand, was Rs. 160.03 per day, as such, the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income, not in accordance with law which is a meagre amount, as such, on such heading the same may be calculated as Rs. 160.03 per day, as the offending vehicle is a government vehicle. The unskilled labourers are paid to the tune of Rs. 249.50 per day as on today, as such, this court may consider this aspect of the matter while calculating the compensation. The accident took place in the year 2013. The unskilled labourers as per the government rate were paid Rs. 160.03 per day and as on today the same is Rs. 249.50 per day as on today, as such, this court may consider this aspect of the matter while calculating the compensation. The accident took place in the year 2013. The unskilled labourers as per the government rate were paid Rs. 160.03 per day and as on today the same is Rs. 249.50 per day, as such, this court may consider the income while calculating the compensation which the court below has wrongly considered notional income to be Rs. 30,000 per annum which is not just, fair and proper. 12. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that accident took place on 9.10.2013 in which Uma Kumar Baitha (deceased), son of claimants, died on the spot. The accident was caused by an Ambassador car, bearing registration No. JH 01-K 0899, being driven rashly and negligently. The vehicle was registered in the name of Conservator of Forest, S.F.P Monitoring and Evaluation Circle, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi but was operating under the Conservator of Forest, Territorial Circle, Medininagar, Palamau, Government of Jharkhand. An F.I.R. has been lodged as Chanho P.S. Case No. 105 of 2013 against the driver of Ambassador car bearing registration No. JH 01- K 0899 under sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code. The postmortem of deceased Uma Kumar Baitha was conducted at RIMS, Ranchi vide Post-Mortem Report No. 2056 of 2013 dated 9.10.2013 and after investigation the police submitted charge-sheet vide No. 104 of 2013 against the driver of the offending vehicle Makhdum Ansari under sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code. Certified copy of F.I.R. has been brought on record as Exh. 1. The certified copy of charge-sheet has been brought on record as Exh. 2. Photocopy of the certificate of the registration of the vehicle has been brought on record, which has been marked as Exh. X for identification. Photocopy of post-mortem report of the deceased has been brought on record and marked as X/1 for identification. From perusal of the judgment in the case of Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) ACJ 2430 (SC) and Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi, (2015) ACJ 708 (SC), wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even though claimants have not filed any appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the courts/Tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation. Ltd., (2018) ACJ 2430 (SC) and Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi, (2015) ACJ 708 (SC), wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even though claimants have not filed any appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the courts/Tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation. This court is of the opinion that for the accident which took place on 9.10.2013, in which young son of both the claimants, aged about 18 years, lost his life, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 3,05,000 is not just and fair in view of the price index as well as lapse of approximately six years, as such this court is inclined to grant just, fair and reasonable compensation. 13. From pleadings of the parties, it appears that claimants have pleaded before the learned Tribunal that deceased was self-employed in business of agriculture, as such his case comes for consideration for future prospects as per para 61 (iv) of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) ACJ 2700 (SC), which is profitably quoted hereunder: "(61) (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 40 and 50 years and 10 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component." 14. Since the deceased was below the age of 40 years, the future prospects ought to have been calculated by adding 40 per cent of the established income. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the case of Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) ACJ 2782 (SC) and also on the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC). In the light of above-mentioned discussions, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to the following amount: Heads Compensation (i) Income Rs. 160.03 x 30 = Rs. 4,800.90 (per month) (ii) Future prospects Rs. 4,800.90 + 40 per cent = Rs. 6,721.26 (iii) Deduction towards personal expenditure ½ x Rs. 6,721.26 = Rs. 3,360.63 (iv) Total income (annual) Rs. In the light of above-mentioned discussions, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to the following amount: Heads Compensation (i) Income Rs. 160.03 x 30 = Rs. 4,800.90 (per month) (ii) Future prospects Rs. 4,800.90 + 40 per cent = Rs. 6,721.26 (iii) Deduction towards personal expenditure ½ x Rs. 6,721.26 = Rs. 3,360.63 (iv) Total income (annual) Rs. 3,660.63 (per month) x 12 = Rs. 40,327.56 (v) Multiplier 18 (for the age group of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25) (vi) Total income 18 x Rs. 40,327.56 = Rs. 7,25,896.08 (vii) Loss of filial consortium Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 40,000 each to father and mother) (viii) Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000 (ix) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000 Total compensation awarded Rs. 8,35,896.08 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application 15. The aforesaid amount shall be paid from the account of Conservator of Forest, S.F.P. Monitoring and Evaluation Circle, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, in whose name the vehicle was registered. 16. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the appellants, Conservator of Forest, S.F.P. Monitoring and Evaluation Circle, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi within a period 60 days from today as the order has been passed in presence of Conservator of Forest, S.F.P. Monitoring and Evaluation Circle, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 17. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modification. 18. Since the instant misc. appeal has already been disposed of, IA No. 9829 of 2017 filed for stay becomes infructuous and accordingly, it is dismissed.