JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( for short ‘Act’), prayer has been made on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter ‘claimant’) to enhance the amount awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Claim petition No.31 of 2011, whereby learned Tribunal below while allowing the claim petition having been filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act, awarded sum of Rs.1,11000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit of amount in favour of the claimant. 2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the claimant Smt. Sumitra Devi, who happened to be mother of deceased Sandeep Kumar, preferred petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of her son namely, Sandeep Kumar. On 20.7.2011, deceased Sandeep Kumar, aged 28 years while coming from Bhuntar to Kullu side riding his own motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-34-B-0518 came to be hit by bus bearing registration No. HP-34-B-2151 being driven by respondent No.2, Hari Singh in rash and negligent manner, as a consequence of which, above named Sandeep Kumar sustained multiple injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Unfortunately, after one day of the accident, above named Sandeep Kumar succumbed to his injuries at PGI Chandigarh. FIR No.177 of 2011, dated 20.7.2011 under Sections 279,337 and 304-A of IPC came to be registered against respondent No.2 at police Station, Bhuntar. Claimant named hereinabove claimed before the Tribunal below that her deceased son was serving as Territory Sales Manager (TSM) with Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Private Limited and his monthly salary was Rs.10, 999/- Claimant submitted before the Tribunal below that death of her deceased son has resulted in great financial loss to her and she is also deprived of love and affection of her son and as such, she be adequately compensated. Claimant claimed that her other son is living separately with his family and there is none to look after her. Claimant also claimed before the Tribunal below that she has spent sum of Rs.50, 000/- on performing last rites and rituals of the deceased. 3. Claimant claimed that her other son is living separately with his family and there is none to look after her. Claimant also claimed before the Tribunal below that she has spent sum of Rs.50, 000/- on performing last rites and rituals of the deceased. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 while fairly admitting the factum with regard to accident resisted the claim on the ground that accident took place on account of negligence of deceased Sandeep Kumar. Respondent No.3, i.e. Insurance Company claimed that it is not liable to pay any sort of compensation because at the time of the alleged accident, driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. Respondent No.3 also claimed that since vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it cannot be burdened with liability to indemnify the insured. 4. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, Tribunal below vide order dated 8.9.2008 framed following issues:- 1. Whether deceased Sandeep Kumar died in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether respondent No.3 being indemnifier is liable to make payment of compensation? OPP. 4. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPR-3 5. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3 6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 7. Relief:- 5. Subsequently, learned Tribunal below vide impugned award dated 29.4.2013 held claimant entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. Rs.1,11000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit of amount. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal below, claimant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal below. 6. Rs.1,11000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit of amount. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal below, claimant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal below. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by learned Tribunal below while passing the impugned award, this Court finds that primarily challenge to the award in the case at hand has been laid on following grounds:- (i). Tribunal below despite being evidence available on record that at the time of alleged accident, deceased was earning Rs. 10,999/- per month erred in determining the loss of dependency only to the tune of Rs.1000/-. (ii). Tribunal below wrongly having taken note of the age of claimant i.e. mother of the deceased applied multiplier of ‘8’,whereas multiplier of ‘17’ is required to be applied keeping in view the age of deceased, who at the relevant time was 28 years old. (iii) Tribunal below has awarded interest on the lower side i.e. 6% because at the time of filing of the claim petition prevalent rate of interest was 9%. 7. Careful perusal of pleadings as well as evidence led on record reveals that though claimant made an endeavour to prove before the Tribunal below that at the time of accident her deceased son was getting salary to the tune of Rs. 10,999/- per month, but since she was not able to prove salary, in accordance with law, learned Tribunal below without determining the actual income, if any, of deceased, of its own proceeded to conclude that deceased was spending Rs.1000/- per month to maintain his mother i.e. claimant. By now it is well settled that where claimant is not able to prove the actual income of deceased/injured by way of documentary evidence or there is no documentary evidence, if any, with regard to income of deceased/claimant, Court can proceed to assess the income on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time. 8. Though, record reveals that claimant with a view to prove salary of her deceased son has placed on record salary certificate, but same was neither proved in accordance with law nor was exhibited, rather same was marked as ‘Y’. 8. Though, record reveals that claimant with a view to prove salary of her deceased son has placed on record salary certificate, but same was neither proved in accordance with law nor was exhibited, rather same was marked as ‘Y’. Since, deceased was well educated, Tribunal below considering him to be unskilled person ought to have assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages payable at the relevant time. It is not in dispute interse parties that in the year 2011, minimum wages as provided under the Minimum Wages Act, were Rs.3300/- per month. Hence, in view of aforesaid discussion, award made by learned Tribunal below needs to be modified. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Govind Yadav versus New India Assurance Company Limited,2012(1) ACJ 28, wherein it has been held as under:- “17. A brief recapitulation of the facts shows that in the petition filed by him for award of compensation, the appellant had pleaded that at the time of accident he was working as helper and was getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The Tribunal discarded his claim on the premise that no evidence was produced by him to prove the factum of employment and payment of salary by the employer. Learned Tribunal then proceeded to determine the amount of compensation in lieu of loss of earnings by assuming the appellant’s income to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum. On his part, the learned single Judge of the High Court assumed that while working as a cleaner, appellant may have been earning Rs. 2,000/- per month and accordingly assessed the compensation under the first head. Unfortunately, both the Tribunal and the High Court overlooked that at the relevant time minimum wages payable to a worker were Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, in the absence of other cogent evidence, Tribunal and the High Court should have determined the amount of compensation in lieu of loss of earnings by taking the appellant’s notional annual income as Rs. 36,000/- and the loss of earnings on account of 70 percent permanent disability as Rs.25,200/- per annum. The application of multiplier of 17 by the Tribunal, which was approved by the High Court, will have to be treated as erroneous in view of the judgment in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). 36,000/- and the loss of earnings on account of 70 percent permanent disability as Rs.25,200/- per annum. The application of multiplier of 17 by the Tribunal, which was approved by the High Court, will have to be treated as erroneous in view of the judgment in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). In para 21 of that judgment, the court has indicated that if the age of the victim of an accident is 24 years, then the appropriate multiplier would be 18. By applying that multiplier, we hold that the compensation payable to the appellant in lieu of the loss of earnings would be Rs.4,53,600/-“. 9. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in Smt. Pappi Devi and others versus Kali Ram and others, Latest HLJ2008 (Himachal Pradesh) 1440, relevant paras of which are reproduced as under:- “6. It has come in the statement of claimant Smt. Kala Devi (PW-1) that the deceased while working as a labourer and also selling milk was having an income of Rs. 4000/- per month. Importantly, there is no cross-examination on this point at all. But the fact of the matter, is that no documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove the income. This is the only evidence with regard to income of the deceased on record. 7. It has come on record that the deceased was illiterate and working as a labourer. In my view, his income determined by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.50/- per day, is on the lower side. Taking the deceased to be employed as a daily wager, the minimum wages paid by the government in the year, 2001 to the labourers was more than Rs.70/- per day. This is not disputed at the Bar. Therefore, the same can be made the basis for determining the income of the deceased. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is determined as Rs.70x30 Rs.2100/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount i.e. Rs.700/- for the purpose of dependency is determined as Rs.1400/-.” 10. This is not disputed at the Bar. Therefore, the same can be made the basis for determining the income of the deceased. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is determined as Rs.70x30 Rs.2100/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount i.e. Rs.700/- for the purpose of dependency is determined as Rs.1400/-.” 10. Similarly, this Court finds that learned Tribunal below has fallen in grave error while applying multiplier of ‘8’ that too on the basis of age of claimant, Smt. Sumitra Devi, whereas multiplier is/was to be applied on the basis of the age of deceased, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017, SC 5157, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld its earlier judgment rendered in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). 11. In the case at hand, deceased was 28 years old at the time of the accident and as such, multiplier of ‘17’ was required to be applied and as such, on the aforesaid count award also needs to be modified. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain and other versus Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 AIR SCW 3105, wherein it has been held as under:- “12. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (AIR 2013 SC (supp) 474)(supra). It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote: “36. In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. To quote: “36. In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma that the claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma.” 14. The multiplier, in the case of the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 years is 17. There is no dispute or grievance on fixation of monthly income as Rs.12,000.00 by the High Court.” 12. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others versus National Insurance Company and others 2012 ACJ 2002 , wherein it has been held as under:- “17. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation. 18. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra) this Court held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table of the said judgment which starts with an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 26 years, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied the multiplier of 17 but the ` High Court committed a serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier of 17 and bringing it down to the multiplier of 13”. 13. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied the multiplier of 17 but the ` High Court committed a serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier of 17 and bringing it down to the multiplier of 13”. 13. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Joseph Philip C.J. and another vs. Judies and others, 2018 ACJ 672 , wherein it has been held as under:- “8. In Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. 2012 ACJ 2002 (SC) and in Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. 201 ACJ 1985 (SC), this Court has held that even if the deceased is a bachelor, his age has to be taken into account for adopting a multiplier. In the instant case, the High Court has taken the age of the mother of the deceased into consideration while applying the multiplier. Since the age of the deceased was 24 years, the High Court should have given the benefit of multiplier of 18. 9. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50 per cent of the income should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the compensation payable towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 16,20,000/- (Rs.15000 ÷ 2 x 12 x 18). The High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,28,000/- towards loss of dependency, which has to be deducted from the said amount. The balance of compensation payable to the claimants is Rs. 10,92,000/- towards loss of dependency. 10. The deceased was the only son of the appellants. The High Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. We are of the view that it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under this head. The balance of compensation payable towards loss of love and affection is Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the additional compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 11,22,000/- (Rupees 10,92,000 + 30,000).” 14. Learned counsel representing the appellant while referring to judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra), argued that claimant is also entitled to certain amount under conventional heads i.e. funeral charges to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, loss of estate Rs.15000/- and Rs.40,000/- on account of filial consortium. 11,22,000/- (Rupees 10,92,000 + 30,000).” 14. Learned counsel representing the appellant while referring to judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra), argued that claimant is also entitled to certain amount under conventional heads i.e. funeral charges to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, loss of estate Rs.15000/- and Rs.40,000/- on account of filial consortium. Besides above, this Court finds that claimant is entitled to an addition of 40% on account of future prospect in terms of the judgment passed in Pranay Sethi case (supra), wherein it has been 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. (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. 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.” 15. At this stage, Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant, 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 claimant being mother of deceased is entitled to amount 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. 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 544 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 count. However, there was no clarity with 5 Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. 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 count. However, there was no clarity with 5 Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors 2017 (4) RLW 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.” 16. Since, deceased was bachelor at the time of the death, 50% of his income is liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses and as such, while taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3300/- per month, total loss of dependency qua claimant can be assessed as under:- Amount(Rs.) Established monthly income of deceased 3300 Income after deducting 50% towards self expenses 1650 Addition of 40% i.e. 1650 x 40 /100 660 Net monthly income 2310 Total loss of dependency = 2310x12x17 4,71,240 17. In view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, award passed by Tribunal below is modified in the following manners:- Head Amount(Rs.) Loss of dependency 4,71,240 Loss of estate 15000 Funeral charges 15000 Filial consortium payable to the claimant 40,000 Total compensation 5,41,240 18. The learned Tribunal below has rightly awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation as such, there appears to be no justification to further increase the rate of interest. Mr. Maan Singh, learned Counsel representing the appellant/claimant while placing reliance upon certain judgments contended that claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum, but such prayer of him cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no provision under Motor Vehicles Act to award interest, save and except Section 171 of M.V. Act, which only speaks about simple interest, however, courts while awarding interest on the compensation have been awarding interest on the basis of prevalent market rate of interest. Since, there is no specific provision under Motor Vehicles Act with regard to rate of interest, court while awarding interest can definitely resort to Section 34 of CPC, which provides that court while passing money decree can award interest at such rate, which is deemed to be reasonable. It is not in dispute that in the year, 2013 prevalent rate of interest was 6% and even as of today it is less than 6% and as such, prayer for increase in rate of interest deserves outright rejection being wholly untenable. 19. 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 the aforesaid extent only. 20. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.