JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, lays challenge to award dated 1.10.2016, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur, District Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, in MAC Petition No.34- MAC/2 of 2014, whereby learned Tribunal below while allowing the claim petition, having been filed by respondents No.1 to 3 (hereinafter ''claimants'') under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ''Act''), held appellant-insurance company liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.17,57,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of petition till payment of the entire amount. 2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Act in the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur, District Nahan, H.P (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal''), seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of deceased Kapil Dev, being his legal heirs/dependents. Since factum with regard to accident as well as death of deceased Kapil Dev is not in dispute, this Court sees no necessity to go into the facts of the case, save and except that on 17.11.2013 deceased, as named hereinabove, suffered multiple injuries while travelling in vehicle bearing registration No. HP-14-B-9500 owned by respondent No.5, Sh. Ashok Kumar and being driven by respondent No.4. Since, respondent No.4 failed to control the vehicle on account of his rash and negligent driving, vehicle, as detailed hereinabove, rolled 200 metres down in a gorge, resulting into the death of deceased Kapil Dev. Claimants averred in the claim petition that at the time of the accident, deceased was 26 years old and he was earning sum of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. Claimants claimed that the deceased was holding Master Degree in Physical Education and he apart from doing coaching and tuition work, was also rendering valuable assistance in cultivating seasonal and unseasonable crops. Claimants claimed before the Tribunal below that deceased being a Master Degree holder in physical education was likely to be appointed in Education Department as Physical Education Teacher and as such, he would have earned Rs.25,000- to Rs.30,000/- per month. 3. Respondent No.4 i.e. driver though did not deny the factum with regard to the accident, but specifically refuted the allegations with regard to rash and negligent driving on his part. 3. Respondent No.4 i.e. driver though did not deny the factum with regard to the accident, but specifically refuted the allegations with regard to rash and negligent driving on his part. Respondent No.4 claimed before the Tribunal below that accident had occurred on account of mechanical failure. Respondent No.4 also claimed that since vehicle in question at the relevant time was being plied under the valid documents including comprehensive insurance policy and he had valid driving licence to drive the vehicle, compensation, if any, is recoverable from the appellant-insurance company. Record reveals that respondent No.5, who was owner of the offending vehicle chose not to participate in the proceedings below and as such, he was proceeded against ex-parte. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company while refuting the claim of the claimants, claimed that since vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. Appellant-Insurance Company also claimed before the Tribunal below that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and as such, it cannot be compelled to indemnify the insured. Apart from above, Insurance Company also took the plea that at the time of alleged accident deceased was travelling in a private vehicle alongwith other persons as a gratuitous passengers and as such, claimants cannot claim any compensation under the policy. 5. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, framed following issues on 5.6.2015:- 1. Whether Kapil died due to rash and negligent driving of Virender Kumar while driving Car No. HP-14-B-9500 near Khareti, P.O. Dingar Kinner on 17.11.2013, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR1. 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR-3. 6. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not holding any valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR-3. 7. Whether the deceased was travelling in the car as gratuitous passenger? OPR-3. 8. Relief:- 6. OPR1. 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR-3. 6. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not holding any valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR-3. 7. Whether the deceased was travelling in the car as gratuitous passenger? OPR-3. 8. Relief:- 6. Learned Tribunal below on the basis of the totality of evidence led on record by the respective parties, held appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.17,57,000/-i.e. Rs.16,32,000/- being loss on account of income of deceased including future prospects, Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner No.2 being loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- being funeral expenses to the petitioners with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till payment of the entire amount. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award passed by learned Tribunal below, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. Grounds taken in the appeal clearly reveal that impugned award has been challenged primarily on three grounds (i) Tribunal below could not have awarded compensation in favour of the claimants in the absence of registration certificate of the offending vehicle;(ii) driver driving the ill-fated vehicle was not possessing valid licence and; (iii) tribunal below has erred while awarding excess amount of compensation under certain conventional heads. 8. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record carefully. 9. Having carefully perused the evidence led on record by the respective parties, this Court finds no force in the arguments of Sh. Chandan Goel, learned counsel representing the appellant-insurance company that learned Tribunal below has erred while returning findings qua issues No.5 and 6. Record clearly reveals that though appellant-insurance company took a plea that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing any driving licence and vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, but evidence available on record clearly reveals that appellant-insurance company failed to prove that vehicle in question was not registered with the registering authority at the time of alleged accident. Perusal of Insurance Policy Ex. RX clearly reveals that vehicle in question was registered on 15.11.2013 and it was valid till 14.11.2014. Vide aforesaid policy, risk of four persons including driver thereof was fully covered. Perusal of Insurance Policy Ex. RX clearly reveals that vehicle in question was registered on 15.11.2013 and it was valid till 14.11.2014. Vide aforesaid policy, risk of four persons including driver thereof was fully covered. Since the appellant-insurance policy itself issued policy in favour of the offending vehicle, learned Tribunal below rightly concluded that "it can be safely inferred that at the time of issuance of policy, vehicle was duly registered with the Registering Authority". Moreover, record clearly reveals that no evidence, worth credence, ever came to be led on record by the insurance company to prove that vehicle in question was not registered. Similarly, this Court finds that though appellant-insurance company took a plea that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid licence but evidence available on record clearly reveals that respondent No.1 tendered in evidence copy of driving licence Ex.RW1/A, perusal whereof clearly reveals that it was issued by District Transport Officer-cum- Licencing Authority, Bishnupur, Manipur and same was valid from 12.8.2013 to 11.8.2018. Apart from above, driver also placed on record "no objection certificate" i.e. ExRW1/B issued by District Transport Officer-cum- Licencing Authority. Mr. Chandan Goel, learned counsel representing the appellant-insurance company while making this Court to peruse the cross-examination conducted upon RW-1 made serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that driving licence Ex.RW1/A tendered on record by the driver is not valid. Mr. Goel, contended that since it has come in the cross-examination of the driver that prior to his obtaining driving licence from Manipur, he had applied at Rajgarh, District Solan, but same was denied for want of some papers and as such, it can be inferred that driving licence placed on record is forged one. Aforesaid submission made by Sh. Goel, learned counsel representing the appellant-insurance company deserves out right rejection being totally devoid of merit. 10. No evidence, worth the name, ever came to be led on record by the insurance company to refute driving licence Ex.RW1/A placed on record by the driver of the offending vehicle. With a view to prove that aforesaid licence is forged, it was incumbent upon the insurance company to produce positive evidence in the shape of documents, if any, issued by the District Transport Officer-cum- Licencing Authority, Bishnupur, Manipur, stating therein that driving licence Ex.RW1/A placed on record is not issued by it and it is forged one. With a view to prove that aforesaid licence is forged, it was incumbent upon the insurance company to produce positive evidence in the shape of documents, if any, issued by the District Transport Officer-cum- Licencing Authority, Bishnupur, Manipur, stating therein that driving licence Ex.RW1/A placed on record is not issued by it and it is forged one. Moreover, appellant-insurance company has made no efforts in the instant case to examine official, if any, from the office of the District Transport Officer-cum-Licencing Authority, Bishnupur, Manipur to prove that driving licence Ex.RW1/A has not been issued by it and same is forged one. Hence, in view of above, aforesaid pleas raised by learned counsel representing the appellantinsurance company, are rejected. 11. As far as plea with regard to error committed by the Tribunal below while awarding compensation under certain heads, this Court finds force in arguments of learned counsel representing the appellant-insurance company because bare perusal of impugned award reveals that learned Tribunal below has erred while awarding compensation under certain heads. 12. At this stage, it would be profitable to take note of the judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , wherein it has been held as under: "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 (supra), 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 (supra). 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 (supra). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 13. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that deceased was self employed and as such, learned Tribunal below ought to have given 40% addition instead of 50% and as such, impugned award needs to be modified on this count. Similarly, this Court finds that learned Tribunal below ought not have awarded sum,if any, under the head of love and affection and apart from above, only sum of Rs.15,000/- could have been awarded by the learned Tribunal below qua the funeral expenses, whereas in the case at hand sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded. Similarly, this Court finds that sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-has been awarded to the spouse of the deceased as loss of consortium, whereas it could not be more than Rs.40,000/- as per the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi''s case supra. 14. Similarly, this Court finds that sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-has been awarded to the spouse of the deceased as loss of consortium, whereas it could not be more than Rs.40,000/- as per the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi''s case supra. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the award passed by learned Tribunal below needs to be modified in following manner:- Established income 8000 Income after 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses 80002667= 5333 Income after 40% increase on account of future prospects 5333+2134= 7467 Total annual income 7467 x 12 =89,604 Total loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 17' 17x89,604= 1523268 15. 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.1/claimant 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/-. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance 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." 17. 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, respondent No. 1 is also held entitled to Rs.40,000/- on account of consortia being mother 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 No. 1 to 3 only) 1523268 Loss of estate (to claimants No.1 to 3 only) 15000 Funeral charges (to claimants No.1 to 3 only) 15000 Total 1553268 Loss of consortium payable to claimant No.2 being wife of the deceased 40000 Loss of consortia payable to claimant No.1 being mother of the deceased 40000 Total 1633268 18. The award amount shall be apportioned among the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 as under:- 1 Smt. Pushpa Devi mother of the deceased (including consortia) Rs.4,40,000/- 2 Smt. Shanno Devi wife of late Sh. Kapil Dev (including consortium) Rs.8,40,000/- 3 Miss. Ridhima D/o late Sh. Kapil Dev Rs.3,53268/- 19. Needless to say, the amount awarded in favour of respondent/claimant No. 3 (minor) shall be invested in her name, in the fixed deposit, till her attaining the age of majority. 20. 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. 21. Needless to say, the amount awarded in favour of respondent/claimant No. 3 (minor) shall be invested in her name, in the fixed deposit, till her attaining the age of majority. 20. 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. 21. 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 passed by learned Tribunal below is modified to the above extent only. 22. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.