JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, ''Act'') lays challenge to Award dated 20.2.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, (HP) in MAC Petition No. 2-S/2 of 2016, whereby, while allowing claim petition under S.166 of the Act, filed by respondents No.1 to 5-claimants (hereinafter, ''claimants''), seeking therein compensation on account of death of deceased, Harish Kumar, it directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.13,07,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation, to the claimants. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the claimants, being legal representatives and dependents of deceased Harsih Kumar, filed a petition under S.166 of the Act, for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.40.00 Lakh or more, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. Claimants averred that the deceased died in a road side accident, which took place on 23.7.2015 near Deon Chowk, Zurich Road, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh on NH 22, when his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-03C-4336 was hit by Truck bearing registration No. HP-64- 6035 (Eicher canter) being driven by respondent No. 7 herein (Sunil Kumar). Since the factum with regard to the accident involving aforesaid vehicles, is not in dispute, this Court sees no necessity to go into the details of the same, save and except that in the aforesaid accident, deceased Harish Kumar, having received fatal injuries, lost his life, on his way to the hospital. FIR No. 77, dated 23.7.2015 under Ss. 279, 337 and 304A IPC was registered at Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. It is further averred by the claimants that the deceased was driver by profession and earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month from salary and agriculture. Claimants claimed that they being legal heirs and dependants of the deceased, are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.40.00 Lakh or more alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum, under various heads. 3. Respondents No. 6 and 7, though filed separate replies, but took similar defence. They stated that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the deceased Harish Kumar, who was driving car bearing registration No.HP-03C4336. 3. Respondents No. 6 and 7, though filed separate replies, but took similar defence. They stated that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the deceased Harish Kumar, who was driving car bearing registration No.HP-03C4336. Aforesaid respondents claimed that respondent No. 7 being driver of the Truck was neither negligent nor rash and he has been falsely implicated by Yashpal, who is owner of Car bearing registration No. HP-03C-4336. Both the respondents, categorically claimed before learned Tribunal below that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, i.e. deceased. Aforesaid respondents also denied the income of the deceased to be Rs.20,000/- per month. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company (respondent No.3 before learned Tribunal below) claimed that the truck bearing registration No. HP-64-6035 was neither insured with it nor it was being plied as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of the Act. Appellant-Insurance Company also claimed that respondent No.7 being driver of Truck in question, was also not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the category of vehicle involved in the accident. Appellant-Insurance Company further claimed that this fact was very much in the knowledge of the insured AppellantInsurance Company also claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle failed to discharge legal obligations under S.134 of the Act. On merits, appellant-Insurance Company denied the factum of the accident having taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.7. Appellant-Insurance Company also claimed that it being insurer is not under legal obligation to indemnify the insured on account of breach of mandatory terms and conditions of insurance policy as well as provisions of the Act. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal below framed following issued on 7.12.2016: "1. Whether the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question by respondent No.2 and the deceased died in the said accident? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmed, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-2 4. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR-2. 5. Whether the petitioners are estopped to file the present petition due to their act and conduct? OPR-2 6. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-2 4. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR-2. 5. Whether the petitioners are estopped to file the present petition due to their act and conduct? OPR-2 6. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding valid and effective driving licence. At the time of accident. If so, its effect? OPR-3 7. Whether the vehicle in question was being lied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy without valid documents. If so, its effect? OPR-3 8. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-3. 9. Relief." 6. Learned Tribunal below, though on the basis of totality of the evidence adduced on record, held respondents No. 6 and 7 and the appellant-Insurance Company jointly liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.13,07,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation, but observed that since the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, it is liable to indemnify the claimants. Learned Tribunal below also held claimants entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. In the aforesaid background, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the impugned award. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the grounds taken in the appeal by the appellant, this court finds that primarily the challenge to the impugned award is on the quantum of compensation. Mr. Virender Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, while making this Court peruse the evidence on record, claimed that learned Court below, failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, owing to which erroneous findings have come to the fore. While making this Court peruse the evidence, be it ocular or documentary, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that there was contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident, as such, learned Tribunal below, erred in not fastening liability on the appellantInsurance Company to the extent of 50%. Mr. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further contended that learned Tribunal below has fallen in error while taking income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month instead of Rs.7050/- as at the relevant time, minimum wages in the State of Himachal Pradesh were Rs.235/- per day in respect of category of Driver. While referring to the judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , Mr. Sharma contended that no amount could have been awarded under the head of ''loss of love and affection'', as such, impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below is vitiated on this count. Mr. Sharma further argued that while passing impugned award, learned Tribunal below has failed to appreciate that the father of the deceased could not be said to be dependent upon the deceased and as such, instead of deducting 1/4th from the income of the deceased towards self expenses, 1/3rd amount ought to have been deducted. 8. Pw-1, Neelam, widow of deceased in her statement given by way of affidavit, Ext. PW-1/A, categorically deposed that on 23.7.2015 at 5.30 am, near Deon Chowki, Zurich Road, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. HP-64-6035 being driver by its respondent No. 7-Sunil Kumar. 9. Pw-2 Yashpal, who happened to be the eye witness, deposed that he was traveling in Car bearing registration No. HP-03C-4336 being driven by the deceased and accident resulted on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing registration No. HP-64-6035. Crossexamination conducted upon this witness nowhere suggests that testimony of this witness could be shattered by the appellant-Insurance Company or the other respondents. Depositions made by these two witnesses, if read in their entirety, clearly suggest that the offending vehicle/Truck came from the opposite side in high speed and struck against the car, as a consequence of which, deceased Harish Kumar, suffered serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. Moreover, copy of FIR, Ext. PW-3/A, dated 23.7.2015, registered at Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, clearly establishes the factum qua rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 7, who was driving the Truck involved in the accident. Moreover, copy of FIR, Ext. PW-3/A, dated 23.7.2015, registered at Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, clearly establishes the factum qua rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 7, who was driving the Truck involved in the accident. Copy of the post-mortem report as well as MLC, Mark C, clearly reveal that the deceased Harish Kumar died on account of ante mortem blunt trauma to liver and neck structures- features consistent with road traffic accidents. Hence, having carefully perused the evidence led on record by respective parties, this Court finds no error and illegality in the finding recorded by learned Tribunal below to the extent that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 7, who at the relevant time was driving truck bearing registration No. HP-64-6035. 10. Though, in the case at hand, claimants claimed that the deceased being driver was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but since they failed to place on record documentary evidence, if any, with regard to the income of the deceased, learned Tribunal below determined monthly income of the deceased on the principle of minimum wages. As per learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, minimum daily wages in the year 2015, when alleged accident took place, were Rs.180/-, as such, learned Tribunal below ought not have taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-, rather, same ought to have been considered as Rs.7,050/-. 11. This Court is in agreement with aforesaid submission of learned appellant-Insurance Company. In the absence of any proof of income of the deceased, monthly income ought to have been assessed on the basis of minimum daily wages fixed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh at the relevant time, which were Rs.235/- per day i.e. Rs.7050/- per month and as such award is required to be modified on this count. So far multiplier applied by learned Tribunal below is concerned, same has rightly been applied as per age of the deceased, which was 32 years at the time of accident and as such, multiplier of 16 has rightly been applied. 12. Similarly, there is force in the argument of Mr. So far multiplier applied by learned Tribunal below is concerned, same has rightly been applied as per age of the deceased, which was 32 years at the time of accident and as such, multiplier of 16 has rightly been applied. 12. Similarly, there is force in the argument of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that since the claimants have not adduced any proof qua the dependency of respondents No.4 and 5 upon the deceased, being mother and father of the deceased, as such, while making deduction on account of personal expenses from the income of the deceased, learned Tribunal below ought to have made 1/3rd deduction, keeping in view the number of dependents i.e. wife and two children only. 13. Monthly income of the deceased thus would be 7050/- per month and Rs. 84,600/- per year. After deducting 1/3rd amount i.e. Rs.28,200/- from aforesaid income, on account of personal expenses of the deceased, net yearly income comes to Rs.56,400/-. Thus, after applying multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,02,400/-. 14. While referring to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further argued that no amount could have been awarded under the head, ''loss of love and affection''. 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. (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 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." 10. As per judgment (supra), no amount could have been awarded under the head of loss of love and affection and as such, award deserves to be modified on this count also. However, in the aforesaid judgment, amount of Rs.15,000/- is required to be awarded in favour of the claimants on account of loss of estate, which learned Tribunal below has not, thus, award deserves to be enhanced on this ground. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants, while inviting attention to judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. However, in the aforesaid judgment, amount of Rs.15,000/- is required to be awarded in favour of the claimants on account of loss of estate, which learned Tribunal below has not, thus, award deserves to be enhanced on this ground. 11. 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 respondents No.4 and 5 being mother and father of deceased are also entitled to amounts on account of filial consortium, which as per aforesaid judgment ought to have been Rs.40,000/- each. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellantInsurance Company argued that this Court has no power to award any extra amount/enhance the amounts already awarded by learned Tribunal below, since no crossobjections/appeal has been filed by the claimants. On the issue of power of an appellate court to make additional award, reference may be made to a judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash and others vs. Divisional Manager and another, (2011) 14 SCC 639 , whereby, it has been 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. 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. In view of the discussions made supra and the law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in the afore-cited judgments, this Court deems it fit to hold that claimants No. 1 to 3 are not entitled to any amount on account of loss of love and affection, but are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate. Besides this, respondents Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are also held entitled to Rs.40,000/- each on account of respective consortia i.e. respondent No.1 being spouse and filial consortia to respondents No. 4 and 5, being parents of the deceased, for the loss of son. Thus, the total amount of compensation would be arrived as under: Head Amount Loss of dependency (to claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only) 902400 Loss of estate (to claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only) 15000 Funeral charges (to claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only) 15000 Total 932400 Loss of consortium payable to claimant No.1 being wife of deceased 40000 Loss of consortia payable to claimants No.4 and 5 being parents @ Rs.40,000/- each 80000 Total compensation 1052400 14. 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. 15. 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.