JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. By way of instant appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”), challenge has been laid to award dated 31.3.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- (IV), Shimla, H.P. (in short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition RBT No. 84-S/2 of 2014, whereby the Tribunal below while allowing claim petition having been filed by the respondents-claimants (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) under Section 166 of the Act, saddled the appellant- Insurance Company with liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,29,000/- to the claimants. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that claimants by way of claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of death of late Smt. Nirmala Dulta i.e. wife of respondent-claimant No.1 and mother of respondents-claimants No. 2 and 3, who was employed as Watershed Participatory Development Facilitator in the department of Forests, Government of Himachal Pradesh. On 6.2.2014, deceased Nirmala was deputed from Rampur Bushahr to Rohru in a camper bearing registration No. HP-06A-4373 to carry apple plants, machinery, vegetables, seeds and other articles for distribution in various panchayats of Tehsil Rohru and Chirgaon and she was entrusted the duty to carry goods for distribution, but unfortunately, at 3:40 pm, aforesaid vehicle rolled down the road on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle being driven by respondent No.7, as a consequence of which, Smt. Nirmala Dulta suffered serious injuries and expired on the spot. An FIR was registered qua the aforesaid incident at PS Rampur Bushahr on 7.2.2014, under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. Claimants claimed before the Tribunal below that at the time of the alleged incident, deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta was drawing consolidated salary of Rs. 10,400/- per month from the office of respondents No. 4 and 5 and she was likely to be regularized after completion of three years’ continuous service. Claimant also claimed that since deceased, who at the time of the accident was 50 years old, was well educated lady, she would have got further promotions for sure during her service career. Claimants being husband and sons of deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta demanded compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of their having suffered mental agony, pain and suffering. 3. Claimants being husband and sons of deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta demanded compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of their having suffered mental agony, pain and suffering. 3. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be resisted by respondents No. 4 and 5 herein, who in their reply admitted that at the time of the incident, deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta was working as Waatershed Participatory Development Facilitator in the Watershed Development Coordinator Unit at Rohru under Development Division, Rampur Bushahr on contract basis. Aforesaid respondents further admitted that deceased had worked in IWDP Kandi Project at Parwanoo Unit w.e.f. 2001 to 2005. They also submitted in their reply that keeping in view the decision of the executive committee meeting, service of the deceased employee was continued w.e.f. 1.2.2006 in H.P. Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Facilitator and she was posted in Divisional Watershed Development Officer, Rampur Bushahr. Aforesaid respondents also admitted that deceased was getting consolidated salary of Rs. 10,400/-per month, but denied that on the date of the alleged incident, deceased Nirmala Dulta, was deputed from Rampur Bushahr to Rohru in the vehicle in question to carry apple plants, machinery, vegetable seeds and other articles for distribution in various panchayats of Rohru. Aforesaid respondents submitted in their reply that the journey of the deceased in the vehicle in question was at her own risk without the knowledge of the project authorities. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company in its reply opposed the claim of the petitioner on the ground of maintainability. On merits, appellant-Insurance Company specifically denied that deceased was travelling in the aforesaid vehicle on the date of occurrence and was deputed by respondents No. 4 and 5 to distribute the articles in different panchayats of Rohru. Appellant-Insurance Company claimed that since deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, it is not liable to pay the compensation. Respondents No. 6 and 7 in their reply, specifically admitted factum with regard to journey undertaken by the deceased in the vehicle in question on the date of the alleged incident from Rampur Bushahr to Rohru, however, denied that vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, Tribunal below framed following issues:- 1. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, Tribunal below framed following issues:- 1. Whether Nirmala Dulta died in motor vehicle accident which tookplace on 6.2.2014 at place Chauka Nala (near Bahli) Tehsil Rampur on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5 while driving vehicle No. HP-06A-4373, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, then what should be the quantum? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the vehicle was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR. 6. Whether the driver was not possessing valid and effective driving license, as alleged ? OPR 7. Whether the petitioner was travelling in the alleged vehicle as unauthorized gratuitous passenger, as alleged? OPR. 8. Whether the petitioners are stopped from filing the present suit on account of their own acts, deeds, conduct and acquiescence, as alleged? OPR. 9. Whether the vehicle was being driven in contravention of provision of M.V. Act, as alleged? OPR. 10. Whether the petition is bad for compliance of Section 80 C.P.C., as alleged? OPR-1&2. 11. Relief. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 31.3.2017, learned Tribunal below held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,29,000/- and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to indemnify respondent No.6 i.e. owner of the vehicle, being insurer. In the aforesaid background, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by the Tribunal below while passing impugned award, this Court finds that primarily challenge to the impugned award has been laid by the appellant- Insurance Company on three grounds: (i) Since deceased was found to be traveling as gratuitous passenger in the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-06A- 4373), appellant-Insurance Company could not have been saddled with the liability to pay the compensation. (ii) Since there were only three dependants of deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta, learned Tribunal below ought not have ordered for 1/4th deduction, rather it should have been 1/3rd. (ii) Since there were only three dependants of deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta, learned Tribunal below ought not have ordered for 1/4th deduction, rather it should have been 1/3rd. (iii) Learned Tribunal below has erred while awarding compensation under conventional heads because in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, no amount under the head of love and affection could have been awarded and only sum of Rs. 15,000/- could have been awarded as funeral charges. 6. Careful perusal of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties reveals that no evidence was led on record by the appellant-Insurance Company. Though appellant- Insurance Company in its reply claimed that at the time of the alleged incident, deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta was travelling as gratuitous passenger and she was not deputed by the employer (respondents No.4 and 5) to travel in the vehicle in question, but such pleadings never came to be proved on record by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. Though learned Tribunal below while having taken note of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by the appellant-Insurance Company framed specific issue with regard to gratuitous passenger that “whether the petitioner was travelling in the alleged vehicle as unauthorized gratuitous passenger, as alleged? OPR”, but since appellant-Insurance Company failed to discharge the onus placed on it qua the aforesaid issue, aforesaid issue rightly came to be decided against the appellant-Insurance Company. 7. Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned counsel representing appellant- Insurance Company while fairly admitting that no evidence was led on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company contended that evidence adduced on record by other parties clearly reveals that at the time of the alleged incident deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta was travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger and as such, Tribunal below ought to have not saddled the appellant-Insurance Company with the liability to pay compensation. While referring to the statement of RW1 Shyam Lal, Project Officer, Mr. While referring to the statement of RW1 Shyam Lal, Project Officer, Mr. Gupta contended that once it was admitted by the Project Officer that on the date of the alleged incident, vehicle in question was not hired by the department and deceased was not assigned the duty to distribute apple plants and seeds etc., there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal below to brush aside the stand taken by the appellant-Insurance Company that on the date of the alleged incident, deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta was not deputed by the department to travel in the vehicle. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid evidence adduced on record, there was no occasion, if any, for the appellant-Insurance Company to lead evidence, especially to prove issue No.7. However, this Court having carefully perused evidence available on record in its entirety finds no merit in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Gupta and as such, same deserves outright rejection. True it is that in reply, appellant-Insurance Company submitted that on the date of the alleged incident, vehicle bearing registration No. HP-06A-4373 was not hired by the department and deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta was not deputed by the department to travel in the vehicle, but since onus to prove the aforesaid factum, if any, was specifically upon the appellant- Insurance Company, it ought to have been proved by the appellant- Insurance Company by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Once appellant-Insurance Company has not been able to discharge onus placed upon it qua issue No.7, it cannot be permitted to take advantage, if any, of statement made by RW-1 Shyam Lal i.e. Project Officer, whose statement if read in its entirety, clearly reveals that an the date of the alleged incident, deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta was working in the department and she was assigned job to distribute the seeds and apple plants etc. in the different panchayats of Rohru. Otherwise also, this court finds that no suggestion worth the name ever came to be put to the claimants during their cross-examinations qua the aforesaid aspect of the matter by the learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company. in the different panchayats of Rohru. Otherwise also, this court finds that no suggestion worth the name ever came to be put to the claimants during their cross-examinations qua the aforesaid aspect of the matter by the learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company. Statement of RW1 cannot be read in isolation, rather entire evidence led on record by the respective parties is required to be considered while arriving at a conclusion that whether on the date of the alleged incident, deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta was travelling in the vehicle in question as gratuitous passenger or she was travelling in the vehicle in her official capacity. 8. In the case at hand, having scanned entire evidence, this Court finds that Tribunal below having taken note of the fact that deceased was survived by respondents-claimants No. 1 to 3 i.e. legal heirs of deceased, rightly ordered for deduction of 1/4th of income on account of personal and living expenses of deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta. Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company contended that since there were only three LRs of deceased, Tribunal below ought to have ordered for deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses. He further submitted that otherwise also, no compensation could have been awarded in favour of claimant No.1- husband because at the time of the alleged incident, he was not dependent upon the deceased-Smt. Nirmala Dulta. Since no evidence, if any, with regard to the non-dependency of claimant No.1 ever came to be led on record by the appellant-Insurance Company, learned Tribunal below rightly considered him to be one of the dependent of deceased Smt. Nirmala Dulta. 9. Hon’ble Apex court in case titled Sarla Verma (SMT) and Ors. V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , has categorically held that where number of dependent family member is two to three, deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses is required to be made. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “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 Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “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 Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 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 dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.” 10. Recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and Ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , has again reiterated that where a number of dependent is 2 to 3, there will be deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is also reproduced herein below “37. 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. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, 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. 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.” In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in so far as Tribunal below ordered deduction of 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses. 11. However, having carefully perused judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), this Court finds substantial force in the submission made by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that learned Tribunal below has erred while awarding certain amount under conventional heads. As per the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), no amount, if any, could have been awarded under the head of loss of love and affection and as such, award made in this regard by the learned Tribunal below needs to be modified. Similarly, learned Tribunal below ought to have awarded sum of Rs. Similarly, learned Tribunal below ought to have awarded sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of funeral charges, but In the case at hand, learned Tribunal below has awarded Rs. 25,000/-. Para 59 of Pranay Sethi’s judgment reads as under:- “59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- 59.1. 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. 59.2 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. 59.3 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. 59.4 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. 59.5 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. 59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8 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.” 12. At this stage, Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel representing respondents-claimants submitted before this Court that since learned Tribunal below has failed to award certain amount under the conventional heads i.e. consortium and loss of estate, this Court while exercising power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC may proceed to award the same in favour of the claimants. Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned counsel, while seriously opposing the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the learned counsel representing claimants contended that since no crossappeal ever came to be filed on account of claimants, this Court has no power to award an extra amount/enhance the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal below in the instant proceedings. On the issue of power of appellate court to make an additional award, reference is made in Ranjana Prakash and Ors. V. Divisional manager and Ors (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, relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below: “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 of the Code can however 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 of the Code can however 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 seeks 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, along with the owner, even though the claimants had not challenged the non-grant of relief against the insurer.” 13. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court that this Court while exercising power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC can proceed to award compensation even in those cases, where no cross appeals have been filed. It is not in dispute that learned Tribunal below while passing impugned award has not awarded amount, if any, on account of loss of estate and consortium to claimant No.1 i.e. husband of the deceased and as such, award to that extent needs to be modified. While placing reliance upon latest judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Somwati and Ors, in Civil appeal No. 3093 of 2020 (a/w connected matters), Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel representing the claimants submitted that claimants No. 2 and 3 being sons of the deceased are also entitled for consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each, in addition to their father. Otherwise also, Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in case titled Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors, (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been also taken note of, in Somwati’s case, has laid down that consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Having taken note of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment passed in Sumawati’s case (supra) has held as under :- “35. Having taken note of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment passed in Sumawati’s case (supra) has held as under :- “35. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under conventional head included any compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ which have been now further reiterated by three- Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). It is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. 36. The word ‘consortium’ has been defined in Black’s law Dictionary, 10th edition. The Black’s law dictionary also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium in following manner:- "Consortium 1. The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between spouses) sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium. •?Filial consortium A child's society, affection, and companionship given to a parent. •?Parental consortium A parent's society, affection and companionship given to a child. •?Spousal consortium A spouse's society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse.” 37. The Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) as well as United India Insurance Company ltd.(Supra), Three-Judge Bench laid down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In paragraph 87 of United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), ‘consortium’ to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Paragraph 87 is quoted below:- "87. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General (supra), the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:- (i) Loss of Estate: Rs. 15,000 (ii) Loss of Consortium: a) Spousal Consortium: Rs.40,000 b) Parental Consortium: 40,000 x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000 (iii) Funeral Expenses: Rs. 15,000” 38. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay Sethi has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium was referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence, there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium. 1,20,000 (iii) Funeral Expenses: Rs. 15,000” 38. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay Sethi has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium was referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence, there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has referred to amount of Rs.40,000/- to the ‘loss of consortium’ but the Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs.40,000/- is only payable as spousal consortium. The judgment of Pranay Sethi cannot be read to mean that it lays down the proposition that the consortium is payable only to the wife. 39. The Three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel ourselves bound by the above judgment of Three Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable. 40. We, thus, found the impugned judgments of the High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. We, however, accept the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation under separate head ‘loss of love and affection’. The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed insofar as the award of compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection.” 14. 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 modify the award passed by learned Tribunal below as under: Head Amount Loss of dependency (to claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only) 14,04,000 Loss of estate (to claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only) 15,000 Funeral charges (to claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only) 15,000 Spousal consortium (to claimant No.1 only) 40,000 Parental and filial consortium ( to claimants No. 2 and 3) ( Rs. 40,000/- each) 80,000 Total compensation 15,54,000 15. 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. 16. 40,000/- each) 80,000 Total compensation 15,54,000 15. 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. 16. 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 impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below is modified to aforesaid extent only. Accordingly, present appeal is disposed of, alongwith all pending applications, if any. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.