JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, lays challenge to Award dated 1.6.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, District Una ,Himachal Pradesh in MACP No. 100 of 2015, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing claim petition having been filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4/claimants (hereinafter, 'claimants') under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, 'Act'), directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,06,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till realisation, to claimants Nos. 3 and 4. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that a petition under S.166 of the Act came to be instituted at the behest of the claimants before learned Tribunal below, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.30.00 Lakh on account of death of Amandeep i.e. son of claimants Nos. 2 and 3. It is averred in the petition that on 15.6.2015, a private bus bearing registration No. HP-72-8969 being driven by respondent No.5, met with an accident, as a result of which, deceased Amandeep died on the spot, whereas, other passengers suffered serious multiple injuries. At the time of accident, deceased was doing ITI in Motor Mechanic, from Industrial Training Institute, Una. Claimants claimed that the deceased was an intelligent young student and besides pursuing his studies/course, was also doing agriculture and household work. As per claimants, deceased used to provide financial assistance of more than Rs.10,000/- per month to his family. Claimants claimed that the deceased was the only young male member to look after his family as such, they are entitled to compensation on account of mental shock, agony and loss of love and affection. 3. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6, by way of joint reply, though admitted the factum with regard to accident, but denied that the vehicle in question was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 5. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company, while contesting the petition on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, contended that the vehicle was being plied in infraction of terms of the insurance policy and as such, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company, while contesting the petition on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, contended that the vehicle was being plied in infraction of terms of the insurance policy and as such, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record, learned Tribunal below framed following issues: "1. Whether the deceased Amandeep died on 15.06.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No. HP-72-8969 by respondent No. 1, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident in question, if so, its effect? OPR-3. 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of M.. Act, if so, its effect? OPR3. 6. Relief." 6. Subsequently, vide Award dated 1.6.2017, learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition, thereby holding claimants Nos. 3 and 4 entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,06,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. In the aforesaid background, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the impugned award being on higher side/excessive. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that primarily Award has been impugned by appellant-Insurance Company on the following grounds, viz., assessment of income of deceased, grant of 50% increase on account of future prospects, higher amount under the head of funeral charges and compensation of Rs.1.00 Lakh each granted under the head of loss of love and affection and loss of expectation of life. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Bhupender Pathania, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argued that since it stands duly established on record that at the time of alleged accident, deceased was pursuing his studies and no specific proof of income of the deceased from agricultural pursuits, if any, ever came to be led on record, learned Tribunal below wrongly took the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. He further contended that in such like situation, learned Tribunal below ought to have taken into consideration minimum wages prevalent in the State at the time of accident. While placing reliance upon law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that since deceased was not engaged in regular employment, 50% increase on account of loss of future prospects could not have been granted and same ought to have been 40%. Besides this, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) no amount could have been granted under the head of loss of love and affection and loss of expectation of life. He argued tht under the head of funeral expenses, maximum amount that could be granted is Rs.15,000/-, as such, Award deserves reduction on the aforesaid grounds. 9. Per contra, Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants contended that since it stands duly proved on record that at the time of accident deceased was pursuing diploma in motor mechanic from Industrial Training Institute, Una, learned Tribunal below rightly assessed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Mr. Sharma, fairly conceded that in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra) only 40% addition on account of loss of future prospects and only Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses, could have been awarded but there is no illegality in the Award inasmuch award of sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh on account of loss of expectation of life is concerned. He also contended that learned Tribunal below has not awarded any amount on account of filial consortium to claimants Nos. 2 and 3 being father and mother, as has been held 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. Mr. He also contended that learned Tribunal below has not awarded any amount on account of filial consortium to claimants Nos. 2 and 3 being father and mother, as has been held 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. Mr. Sharma further contended that no amount has been awarded on account of loss of estate, as such, Award deserves to be enhanced on these two counts. 10. True it is that as per record available, claimants were not able to prove that at the time of alleged accident, deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month on account of agricultural pursuits but since it stands duly proved on record that at the time of alleged accident, deceased was pursuing ITI diploma learned Tribunal below has rightly considered his income as Rs.6,000/- per month. 11. Though it is settled law that in case where specific evidence is not available with respect to income, courts are required to refer to formula of minimum wages but, in the case at hand, record reveals that learned Tribunal below has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of wages payable under MGNREGA, prevalent at the time of accident, which otherwise conform to the Minimum Wages Act. 12. So far addition of 50% on account of loss of future prospects and grant of amount under the head of loss of estate is concerned, reference may be made to Pranay Sethi (supra), wherein 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. 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. (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. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was not in a regular employment, as such, only 40% addition on account of future prospects can be allowed. Besides this, only a sum of Rs.15,000/- could have been awarded for funeral expenses as such, award deserves to be modified on these counts. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was not in a regular employment, as such, only 40% addition on account of future prospects can be allowed. Besides this, only a sum of Rs.15,000/- could have been awarded for funeral expenses as such, award deserves to be modified on these counts. Also, no amount under the head loss of love and affection and loss of expectation of life could have been awarded by learned Tribunal below, as such, award deserves reduction on this ground also. 14. At this stage, Learned Counsel appearing 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.2 and 3 being parents 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. 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. 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 ; 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." 15. 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. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium." 15. 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." 16. In view of the discussions made supra and the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore-cited judgments, while taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, total loss of dependency qua claimants No.3 and 3 can be assessed thus: Amount (Rs. Established monthly income of deceased 6000 Income after deducting 50% towards self expenses 3000 Addition of 40% i.e. 3000x 40 /100 1200 Net monthly income 4200 Total loss of dependency = 4200x 12x14 705600 17. In view of aforesaid discussion, Award is modified in the following manner: Head Amount (Rs. Established monthly income of deceased 6000 Income after deducting 50% towards self expenses 3000 Addition of 40% i.e. 3000x 40 /100 1200 Net monthly income 4200 Total loss of dependency = 4200x 12x14 705600 17. In view of aforesaid discussion, Award is modified in the following manner: Head Amount (Rs. Loss of dependency (to claimants Nos. 3 and only) 705600 Loss of estate (to claimants Nos. 3 and 4 only) 15000 Funeral charges (to claimants Nos. 3 and 4 only 15000 Total 735600 Loss of consortium payable to claimants Nos. 2 and 3 @ Rs.40000 each 80000 Total compensation 815600 18. So far rate of interest on the aforesaid amount is concerned, same calls for no interference as such, same is 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. 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.