JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of present appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenge has been laid by appellant-Insurance Company to Award dated 19.1.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Una, Himachal Pradesh in MAC Case No. 24 of 2011, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing claim petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 (hereinafter, 'claimants'), being dependents of deceased Krishan Kumar, proceeded to award a compensation of Rs.47,27,504 alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim till the amount is deposited with learned Tribunal below. 2. Since, by way of present appeal, appellant-Insurance Company has laid challenge to the award only qua quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal below, this court sees no reason to discuss the facts of the case as well as evidence adduced by the respective parties, especially when the same are not in dispute. Moreover, quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal below has been challenged solely on the ground that learned Tribunal below, while determining annual income, ought to have taken into consideration the component of income-tax, if any, payable by the deceased. 3. Mr. Ashwani K.Sharma, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate, while placing reliance upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , strenuously argued that learned Tribunal below, while calculating annual income of the deceased, wrongly took into consideration the gross salary of the deceased, without deducting the income-tax payable by him, whereas, it ought to have deducted the income-tax, if any, payable by the deceased from the actual salary, while computing annual income of the deceased. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Having carefully perused the aforesaid judgments, this Court is in agreement with learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company that learned Tribunals below, while computing annual income of the deceased, are required to deduct income-tax, if any, payable by the deceased. In the aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that where annual income is taxable, annual salary shall mean annual salary less tax. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Reshma Kumari (supra) has held as under: "39. In the aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that where annual income is taxable, annual salary shall mean annual salary less tax. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Reshma Kumari (supra) has held as under: "39. The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases." 7. Similarly, in Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "59. 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. 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%. 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 42 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." 8. In the aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court while holding that courts, at the time of determining income of the deceased, must give an addition of 50% to the actual salary towards future prospects, if deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years of age, also reiterated that actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 9. XXX XXX XXX 10. In the case at hand, claimants have successfully proved the income of deceased by proving Last Pay Certificate (LPC) (Ext. PW-2/A) through PW-2 Suman Kumari from the office of Executive Engineer, HPPWD (Electrical), Una. She categorically stated that salary detail, Ext. PW-2/A is for February, 2011. According to Ext. PW-2/A, gross salary of deceased was Rs.22,294/- but learned Tribunal below, excluded component of CA of Rs.200 and HRA of Rs.300. PW-2/A) through PW-2 Suman Kumari from the office of Executive Engineer, HPPWD (Electrical), Una. She categorically stated that salary detail, Ext. PW-2/A is for February, 2011. According to Ext. PW-2/A, gross salary of deceased was Rs.22,294/- but learned Tribunal below, excluded component of CA of Rs.200 and HRA of Rs.300. However, it has been specifically ruled in the aforesaid judgments that while determining annual income of a deceased, income-tax, if any payable, is to be deducted from the gross salary. 11. In the case at hand, deceased was in receipt of Rs.22,294/- as is evident from Ext. PW-2/A i.e. salary detail for the month of February, 2011. Income-tax rates/slabs for the Financial Years 2011-12 (Assessment Year 2012-13) clearly suggest that upto Rs.1,80,000/-, there was no tax payable at the relevant time, whereas, 10% tax was payable on the amount from Rs.1,80,001 to Rs.5,00,000/-. If annual salary on the basis of total gross salary of deceased is calculated, it comes to Rs.21,794 (gross salary minus amounts of CA and HRA i.e. Rs.500) x12 = 2,61,528/-. As has been noticed herein above, for the Financial Years 2011-12, no income-tax was payable upto income of Rs.1,80,000/- and further under S.80C, benefit of deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- is allowed, which includes various savings including under GPF. It is evident from Ext. PW-2/A, that the deceased was contributing a sum of Rs.11,194/- towards GPF subscription and as such, his total saving on account of said subscription would come to Rs.11,194x12 =1,34,328/- and as such, he would avail deduction from taxable salary to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. But since in the case at hand, since total annual income of the deceased from salary comes to Rs.2,61,528/- whereas, as per existing slabs /rates of income- tax for the Financial Year 2011-12, no tax would have been levied upto income of Rs.2,80,000/- (i.e. Rs.1,80,000/- tax free income plus benefit of S.80C to the maximum of Rs.1,00,000/- ), as such, there is no merit in the argument of learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, that learned Tribunal below has wrongly not deducted the income-tax from the annual salary of the deceased. 12. 12. Besides this, this Court also does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award to the extent of grant of an addition of 50% to the actual income towards future prospects and deduction of 1/4th of income towards self-expenses and as such, learned Tribunal below has rightly computed annual income of the deceased at Rs.2,94,219 and total loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 16 i.e. 2,94,219x 16 =47,07,504/-. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the claimants pleaded that as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), learned Tribunal below has awarded lesser amount under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses, which ought to have been Rs.15,000/- each. Similarly, amount under loss of consortium to wife i.e. claimant No.1 is also on lower side i.e. Rs.10,000/-, which it ought to have been Rs.40,000/- as per law laid down in the judgment (supra). 14. Learned counsel for the claimants, while inviting attention to judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 decided on 18.9.2018, argued that respondent No.5 being mother of deceased is also entitled to amount on account of filial consortium, which as per aforesaid judgment ought to have been Rs.40,000/-. 15. This court is totally in agreement with aforesaid arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi(supra), Rs.15,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral charges ought to have been awarded. Similarly, under the head of loss of consortium to spouse i.e. claimant No. 1, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is required to be awarded. So far argument raised by learned counsel for the claimants qua grant of amount under the head of loss of filial consortium to claimant No.5 (mother of deceased) is concerned, this Court deems it fit to compensate claimant No. 5 for the loss of her son, by awarding an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation would be arrived as under: Head amount Loss of dependency 4707504 Loss of estate 15000 Funeral charges 15000 Total 4737504 Loss of consortium payable to claimant No. 40000 Loss of consortium payable to claimant No.5 40000 Total compensation 4817504 16. Thus, the total amount of compensation would be arrived as under: Head amount Loss of dependency 4707504 Loss of estate 15000 Funeral charges 15000 Total 4737504 Loss of consortium payable to claimant No. 40000 Loss of consortium payable to claimant No.5 40000 Total compensation 4817504 16. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company though argued that this Court has no power to award any extra amount/enhance the amounts already awarded by learned Tribunal below, since no cross-objections/appeal has been filed by the claimants, however, 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." 17. Apportionment of awarded amount amongst the claimants shall remain as determined by the learned Tribunal below except the amounts under the head of loss of consortium awarded to claimants No.1 and 5, which shall be exclusively payable to them. 18. 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. 19. 18. 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. 19. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present appeal is disposed of and impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below is modified to aforesaid extent only. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.