JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant appeal having been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company lays challenge to Award dated 8.8.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Claim Petition No. 26- NL/2 of 19/15, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition having been field by respondents Nos. 1 to 3/claimants (hereinafter, 'claimants'), saddled the appellant-Insurance Company with liability to pay a sum of Rs.14,41,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, being insurer. 2. Precisely the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act came to be filed on behalf of the claimants, who happen to be mother, father and brother of deceased, Deepika, on account of her death in an accident on 5.12.2014 at plac near Petrol Pump, Village Dhanana, on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. HR-61B-7133 of Haryana Roadways being driven by respondent No.6. On 5.12.2014, while the deceased alongwith her father, mother, brother and other relative was going in a Nano car bearing registration No. HP12D-0108 being driven by her father, from Bhiwani to Kaithal, aforesaid bus, while over taking another vehicle, collided with the Nano car, as a consequence of which, occupants of the car sustained injuries. Unfortunately, deceased Deepika died on the spot. FIR No. 872/2014 under Ss. 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered against respondent No. 6. Claimants being dependents of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming therein compensation, on account of death of Deepika, averring therein that they spent Rs.15,000 on last rites of the deceased and for bringing her dead to her native place. Besides above, claimants also claimed that the deceased was a student, doing work of tailoring etc. apart from agricultural work as such, was earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. 3. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate replies denying accident in question and claimed that a false FIR stands lodged against respondent No.6. 4. Respondent No.6, however, alleged that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of Nano car. 5. 3. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate replies denying accident in question and claimed that a false FIR stands lodged against respondent No.6. 4. Respondent No.6, however, alleged that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of Nano car. 5. Appellant-Insurance Company claimed that since the offending vehicle i.e. Bus was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the policy and accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. Besides above, appellant-Insurance Company claimed that the compensation being sought by the claimants is on higher side. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal below framed following issues on 19.8.2016: "Issue No.1. Whether the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.3 and deceased died in the said accident? OPP Issue No.2 If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP Issue No.3 whether the petition si not maintainable? OPR Issue No.4 Whether driver of the offending vehicle wan to holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident? OPR-4 Issue nno. 5 Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy without valid documents? If so, its effect? OPR-4" 7. Subsequently, learned Tribunal below, on the basis of evidence led on record, allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.14,41,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of the claimants. Learned Tribunal below though held all the respondents including appellant-Insurance Company liable jointly and severally to pay compensation but directed the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the award amount within a period of one month. In the aforesaid background, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the impugned award. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that primarily challenge to the impugned award is on quantum. Mr. In the aforesaid background, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the impugned award. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that primarily challenge to the impugned award is on quantum. Mr. Raman Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, fairly states that since factum with regard to accident as well as rash and negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle stands duly established on record, he does not intend to raise question, if any, with regard to aforesaid findings, as such, this Court will not go into that question. 10. Mr. Raman Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that though the claimants claimed that the deceased, who was 20 years of age at the time of accident, was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, on account of her tailoring work but since they failed to prove the same in accordance with law, learned Court below wrongly assessed her income at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month. He further contends that as per own case of the claimants, deceased Deepika at the time of accident was pursuing her studies, as such, version put on their behalf that she was doing tailoring work, ought not have been accepted by learned Tribunal below. Besides above, Mr. Sethi contends that once it stood proved on record that at the time of accident, deceased was a bachelor, learned Tribunal below ought to have deducted 50% of established income towards self-expenses, whereas, in the case at hand, having taken note of the fact that deceased left behind two dependents at the time of her death, learned Tribunal below made deduction of 1/3rd towards living expenses of the deceased from her established income. Lastly, Mr. Sethi contends that otherwise also, it stands admitted by mother of the deceased i.e. claimant No. 1 that at the time of alleged accident, claimant No.2, Rakesh Kumar, father of the deceased was earning handsome amount, as such, in no circumstance, he could have been considered as a dependent upon the deceased. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Lastly, Mr. Sethi contends that otherwise also, it stands admitted by mother of the deceased i.e. claimant No. 1 that at the time of alleged accident, claimant No.2, Rakesh Kumar, father of the deceased was earning handsome amount, as such, in no circumstance, he could have been considered as a dependent upon the deceased. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants contends that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award, rather, the same deserves to be enhanced under certain heads, in light of the evidence available on record. Mr. Sharma contends that learned Tribunal below has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- taking into consideration the fact that even a labourer or a domestic help is not paid less than Rs.7,000/- and as such, no interference, if any, is called for on this count. Mr. Sharma further contends that besides above, learned Tribunal below, ought to have awarded filial consortium in favour of claimants Nos. 1 and 2, being mother and father of the deceased, in terms of judgment rendered in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 decided on 18.9.2018. 12. Perusal of record reveals that though claimants claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month but no evidence worth credence ever came to be led on record to substantiate aforesaid claim as such, learned Tribunal below rightly proceeded to assess the income of the deceased on notional basis, having taken note of the fact that the deceased being a student was capable of doing work. However, question which remains to be considered at this stage is whether a sum of Rs.7,000/- assessed in the case at hand is on higher side , especially when there is no evidence on record to the fact that the deceased while pursuing her studies was also doing some tailoring work. Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagar Mal v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) ACJ 971 , in same set of facts, has taken notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra) has held as under: "3 While assessing the claim of compensation, the Tribunal noted that the deceased was a bachelor, aged 20 years. Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagar Mal v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) ACJ 971 , in same set of facts, has taken notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra) has held as under: "3 While assessing the claim of compensation, the Tribunal noted that the deceased was a bachelor, aged 20 years. On the income of the deceased, the Tribunal did not accept the certificates for the months of August, September and October 2008 produced by the first appellant who is the father of the deceased in support of the case that the deceased had a monthly earning of Rs 15,000/-. The Tribunal indicated that the certificates have not been duly proved. The deceased was pursuing the professional Chartered Accountancy course. The Tribunal adopted an income of Rs.6,000/- per month and since the deceased was a bachelor, it deducted a sum of Rs 3,000/- per month towards personal expenses. A multiplier of 11 was applied on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased. Accordingly, the loss of dependency was computed at Rs 3,96,000/- and after addition of conventional heads, a total compensation of Rs.4,31,000/- was awarded. 6 The Tribunal has given cogent reasons for declining to accept the income certificates which were relied upon by the father of the deceased. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the companies which were alleged to have issued the certificates to prove the certificates. Evidently there was a failure to establish that the deceased, who was a student pursuing his C.A. was in receipt of a monthly income of Rs 15,000/-. Hence, we are of the view that the assessment of income by the Tribunal cannot be faulted." 13. In view of above, income of the deceased in the present case is required to be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month. 14. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:- "30. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:- "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% 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. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third." ----- 59. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third." ----- 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. (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. (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." 15. In view of judgment supra, deduction of 50% from the established income of the deceased towards self-expenses is required to be made. Also, in view of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), claimants Nos. 1 and 2, being parents of the deceased are entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. 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 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. 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, the award is modified on following counts: Head Amount Loss of dependency: Monthly income =6000 Future prospects @ 40% i.e. 2400= 8400 Deduction towards self expenses at the rate of 50% =4200 Net income = 4200 Loss of dependency 4200x12 x 18 Loss of dependency (to claimants Nos. 1 and 2 only) 907200 Loss of estate 15000 Funeral charges 15000 Total 937200 Loss of consortia payable to claimants Nos. 1 and 2 being parents @ Rs.40,000/- each 80000 Total compensation 1017200 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. Similarly, apportionment of the amount shall also remain in the same ratio, as has been held by learned Tribunal below i.e. claimants Nos. 1 and 2 are held entitled to half share each in the total amount of compensation. 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.