JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays challenge to Award dated 16.6.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in MAC Petition No. 22-S/2 of 2011, whereby claim petition having been filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 6-petitioners (hereinafter, 'claimants') has been allowed and appellant-Insurance Company has been saddled with liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,97,000/- to claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation as also costs of Rs.3,000/-. 2. For having bird's eye of the matter, certain undisputed facts which may be relevant for the adjudication of the appeal at hand, are that the claimants preferred a claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying therein for compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-, on account of death of Sushil Kumar, who died in a motor accident. On 26.9.2011 at 11.15 am, vehicle bearing registration No. HP-63- 3632 being driven by respondent No.7, who was also owner of the said vehicle, met with an accident, as a consequence of which, Sushil Kumar, who at the relevant time was traveling in the vehicle in question as owner of the goods, suffered multiple injuries. Initially, the above named deceased was taken to Regional Hospital, Solan, and thereafter was referred firstly to IGMC Shimla and then to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admitted from 27.9.2011 to 5.10.2011 and unfortunately, succumbed to his injuries on 5.10.2011. In the aforesaid background, claimants filed the claim petition before learned Tribunal below. 3. Aforesaid claim petition came to be contested by respondent No.7 (respondent No.1 before learned Tribunal below), who is driver-cum-owner of the vehicle, on the ground that since claimants Nos. 4 to 6 were not dependent upon the deceased, petition on their behalf is not maintainable. Respondent No.7 also stated in his reply that claimant No.4- Sher Singh was in receipt of salary being employee of HPSEB. Besides above respondent No.7 also claimed in the reply that claimants Nos. 5 and 6 being brother and sister of the deceased are not his legal heirs and also not dependent on the income of the deceased, as such, they are also not entitled to file the claim petition. Besides above respondent No.7 also claimed in the reply that claimants Nos. 5 and 6 being brother and sister of the deceased are not his legal heirs and also not dependent on the income of the deceased, as such, they are also not entitled to file the claim petition. Interestingly, respondent No.1 in his reply, though pleaded that the deceased was not regularly engaged in the business of vegetables but admitted that he used to do such business off and on. Respondent No. 7 specifically denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving on his part, on the date of alleged accident and claimed that the accident took place on account of sudden failure of brake system. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company refuted the claim on the ground that since the vehicle in question was being plied by respondent No.7 without there being valid and effective driving licence, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. Apart from above, appellant-Insurance Company also claimed before learned Tribunal below that since the deceased was traveling in the vehicle as a gratuitous/unauthorized passenger, appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal below framed following issued on 21.12.2012: "Issue No.1 Whether Sh. Sushil Kumar died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 26.09.2011 at about 1.15 a.m. near Panch Parmeshar Mandir, Deonghan, Solan, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No HP-63- 3632 being driven by respondent No.1? OPP Issue No.2 If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP Issue No.3 Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. At the time of accident? OPR-2. Issue No. 4 Whether the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous/unauthorized passenger, as allege? OPR-2. Issue No.5 Relief" 6. Learned Tribunal below, vide Award dated 16.6.2014, held the claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only entitled to the compensation in the sum of Rs.10,97,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of the award amount alongwith costs of Rs.3,000/-. OPR-2. Issue No.5 Relief" 6. Learned Tribunal below, vide Award dated 16.6.2014, held the claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only entitled to the compensation in the sum of Rs.10,97,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of the award amount alongwith costs of Rs.3,000/-. Vide aforesaid award, though learned Tribunal below held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.7, but since the vehicle was insured at the relevant time with the appellant- Insurance Company, it is the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation. In the aforesaid background, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the Award. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis--vis reasoning assigned by learned Tribunal below in the impugned award, this Court finds that mainly challenge has been laid by the appellant-Insurance Company to the quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal below. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, while making this Court peruse the evidence led on record by respective parties vis--vis reasoning assigned by learned Tribunal below qua issue No.4, contended that once claimants were not able to place on record, document, if any, qua the income of the deceased, learned Tribunal below ought not have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- per month. Mr. Thakur contended that though in the case at hand, claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, but neither any Income Tax Returns nor any bills, suggestive of the fact that deceased was earning the aforesaid sum by sale/purchase of vegetables, ever came to be placed on record, as such, learned Tribunal below, while determining monthly income of the deceased, ought to have taken into consideration minimum wages payable to the daily wagers in the agriculture sector. Mr. Thakur, contended that with effect from October 1, 2011, minimum wages of daily wagers employed in agricultural sector were Rs.120/- per month, as such, total monthly income of the deceased could be said to be Rs.3600/- and not Rs.4500/- per month. Apart from above, Mr. Mr. Thakur, contended that with effect from October 1, 2011, minimum wages of daily wagers employed in agricultural sector were Rs.120/- per month, as such, total monthly income of the deceased could be said to be Rs.3600/- and not Rs.4500/- per month. Apart from above, Mr. Thakur also contended that since Shri Surya Deep Thakur, RW-2, categorically deposed before learned Tribunal below that at the relevant time, vehicle was not loaded with any goods nor any recovery memo showing anything loaded has been prepared in criminal case , learned Tribunal below erred in concluding that the deceased at the time of alleged accident was traveling in the capacity of owner of goods. Mr. Thakur contended that since it stands duly proved on record that at the time of accident, no vegetables were being transported, presence if any of the deceased in the vehicle in question can be termed as gratuitous passenger and in that eventuality, appellant-Insurance Company could not have been burdened with the liability to pay compensation. Lastly, Mr. Thakur contended that since it stood proved on record that the petitioner was aged 40 years and was self employed, learned Tribunal below ought not have awarded addition of 50% to the assessed income of the deceased, on account of loss of future prospects, rather, in terms of law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , addition of 40% to the established income of the deceased should have been made. 9. Having carefully perused the evidence led on record by the claimants, this court finds force in the contention of learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company that the claimants were not able to prove that at the time of alleged accident, deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month from the business of sale-purchase of vegetables. Learned Tribunal below, though has recorded the factum with regard to non-production of record/documents, if any, qua income of the deceased but despite that proceeded to assess notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4500/- per month. Learned Tribunal below, though has recorded the factum with regard to non-production of record/documents, if any, qua income of the deceased but despite that proceeded to assess notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4500/- per month. Since it stood proved that the deceased was doing business of vegetables and he had hired the vehicle in question to transport the vegetables, no fault, if any, can be found with the findings returned by learned Court below that at the time of alleged accident, deceased was traveling in the vehicle in question as owner of goods but since claimants failed to lead specific evidence, if any, with regard to income of the deceased, learned Tribunal below ought to have resorted to assess the income of deceased taking into consideration minimum wages prevalent in the State of Himachal Pradesh at the relevant time. 10. It has nowhere come in the evidence that for carrying business of vegetables, deceased was having any shop, rather, evidence available on record suggests that he being an agriculturist, used to sell vegetables in the market, meaning thereby learned Tribunal below, while assessing monthly income of the deceased, ought to have taken into consideration, minimum wages payable to the daily wage workers in agricultural sector at the relevant time. It is not in dispute inter se parties that with effect from 1.10.2011, minimum wages applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh qua agricultural sector were Rs.120/- per day. Having applied aforesaid wages in the case of deceased, his monthly income comes to Rs.3600/-. 11. Similarly, this court finds that learned Tribunal below, while applying ratio of judgment laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others,2013 SAR(Civil) 594 proceeded to make an addition of 50% to the actual income while assessing monthly income, whereas, as per latest judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), only an addition of 40% could have been made. In Pranay Sethi (supra), it has been categorically held that, if a person is self-employed and his age is less than 40 year, an addition of 40% would be made to his established income, while assessing loss of dependency. However, this Court deems it fit to make deduction towards self expenses at the rate of 1/4th of established income. 12. In Pranay Sethi (supra), it has been categorically held that, if a person is self-employed and his age is less than 40 year, an addition of 40% would be made to his established income, while assessing loss of dependency. However, this Court deems it fit to make deduction towards self expenses at the rate of 1/4th of established income. 12. In the case at hand, there is no dispute inter se parties so far application of multiplier of 18 is concerned, because at the time of accident, admittedly deceased was 40 years of age and as such, in terms of Sarla Verma case, learned Tribunal below has rightly applied multiplier of 18, as such, same deserves to be upheld. Thus, the total loss of dependency would be: Established income of the deceased = Rs.3600 Deduction towards self expenses: = 3600x1/4= 900 Income after deduction =2700 Amount awarded on account of loss of future prospects: 2700 x 40/100 = 1080 Total income =3780 Annual income =3780 x 12= 45,360 Total loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 18 =45,360x18=816480 13. 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%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 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. This Court is also in agreement with Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company that learned Tribunal below has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh as consortium to claimant No.1, which should have been Rs.40,000/-. Similarly, on account of funeral expenses, only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- ought to have been awarded. However, since no sum under the loss of estate has been granted, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is also liable to be awarded in favour of claimants. 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 claimants No.3 and 4 being mother and father of deceased are also entitled to amounts on account of filial consortia, which as per aforesaid judgment ought to have been Rs.40,000/- each. 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 claimants No.3 and 4 being mother and father of deceased are also entitled to amounts on account of filial consortia, which as per aforesaid judgment ought to have been Rs.40,000/- each. Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has held as under: "8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation." 4 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training." Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and 3 Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 4 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979) family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count5. However, there was no clarity with 5 Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors, (2017) 4 RajLW 3368 (Raj); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & 6 Ors. respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium." 12. 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 cross-objections/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. 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) 816480 Loss of estate (to claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only) 15000 Funeral charges (to claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only) 15000 Total 846480 Loss of consortium payable to claimant No.1 being wife of deceased 40000 Loss of consortia payable to claimants No.3 and 4 being parents @ Rs.40,000/each 80000 Total compensation 966480 14. Similarly, as per prevailing rate of interest, 7.5% per annum is not adequate and same is enhanced to 9% per annum. 1 to 3 only) 15000 Total 846480 Loss of consortium payable to claimant No.1 being wife of deceased 40000 Loss of consortia payable to claimants No.3 and 4 being parents @ Rs.40,000/each 80000 Total compensation 966480 14. Similarly, as per prevailing rate of interest, 7.5% per annum is not adequate and same is enhanced to 9% per annum. Otherwise also, recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shalu Sharma, (2018) 2 SCC 753 , awarded 9% interest and as such, claimants in the present case are also entitled to a higher rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held as under: "The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs 3,14,335 towards medical expenses. An addition of Rs 70,000 would be required to be made in terms of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) on account of the conventional heads of loss of estate (Rs 15,000), loss of consortium (Rs 40,000) and funeral expenses (Rs 15,000). Hence, the total compensation is quantified at Rs 27,66,522 on which the claimants would be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The apportionment shall be carried out in terms of the award of the Tribunal. We order accordingly." 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. The apportionment shall remain as determined by learned Tribunal below in the impugned award. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.