JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( for short 'Act'), challenge has been laid to award dated 19.07.2017, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims TribunalI, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in MACP (RBT) No.27-K/II/14/10, titled Sh. Parveen Kumar vs. Sh. Jagdish Chand & Another, whereby claim petition having been filed by respondent No.1/claimant (hereinafter 'claimant') under Section 166 of the Act, praying therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of accident, came to be allowed and an amount of Rs.12,15,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the of filing of the petition till realization. 2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the claimant Parveen Kumar, on account of death of his wife Madhu Devi, who unfortunately, died in a road accident, filed claim petition under S.166 of the Act for compensation. On 21.06.2009, deceased Madhu Devi, wife of the claimant had gone to Mata Kunal Pathri temple, Dharamshala, to pay obeisance along with many other persons. After paying obeisance in the temple, deceased along with many other persons was standing on the side of the road. The offending truck bearing No. HP-40-6982, which was being driven by driver (deceased Ajay Kumar), suddenly came towards the deceased and other persons standing on the road and struck against them, as a consequence of which, many persons died including the deceased Madhu Devi, wife of the claimant, whereas, many other persons sustained injuries. The claimant Parveen Kumar, claimed before the learned Tribunal below that his wife Madhu Devi, was earning an amount of Rs. 6000/- per month, from sale of milk and from agriculture pursuits and as such, he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondents with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization. FIR bearing No. 140/2009, also came to be registered against respondent No.2, Jagdish Chand as well as driver of vehicle, deceased Ajay Kumar on 21.06.2009. 3. The aforesaid claim put forth by claimant, came to be resisted on behalf of respondents, who in their reply claimed that on the day of accident, they were going to Pathankot, for bringing bricks. FIR bearing No. 140/2009, also came to be registered against respondent No.2, Jagdish Chand as well as driver of vehicle, deceased Ajay Kumar on 21.06.2009. 3. The aforesaid claim put forth by claimant, came to be resisted on behalf of respondents, who in their reply claimed that on the day of accident, they were going to Pathankot, for bringing bricks. Driver of the vehicle had parked it at Kunal Pathri Mandir complex and unfortunately, some children, who had gathered near the truck opened the cabin of the driver and mishandled the gear lever, as a result of which, the truck fell down in the Nallah. They further submitted before learned Tribunal below that the deceased Ajay Kumar had parked the truck carefully on the road and never hoped that the children would come near the truck and mishandle it. 4. Precisely, the case of the respondents, before the learned Tribunal below was that accident took place due to mishandling of gear lever by the children. 5. Appellant/Insurance Company, who being insurer of the offending vehicle, came to be saddled with the liability to pay compensation, opposed the claim of the claimant on the ground that the driver of the truck, Ajay Kumar was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and as such, it is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Besides above, Insurance Company, also claimed that since the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the policy, it cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation, if any, to the claimant. Appellant-Insurance Company, specifically submitted before learned Tribunal below that petition is not maintainable against it as the deceased alongwith other passengers had been travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger. Besides above, appellant/insurance company, averred in the reply that the claimant/petitioner was not dependent on the income of the deceased and as such, he is not entitled to get compensation. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, learned Tribunal below vide order dated 28.11.2013, framed following issues:- 1. Whether Smt. Madhu Devi, had died due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP40-6982 near Kunal Pathri Mandir on 21.06.2009 at about 4.30 P.M.? OPP 2. If issue No.1, is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP . 3. Whether Smt. Madhu Devi, had died due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP40-6982 near Kunal Pathri Mandir on 21.06.2009 at about 4.30 P.M.? OPP 2. If issue No.1, is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP . 3. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-1 4. Whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger? OPR-1 5. Relief. 6. Subsequently, vide award dated 19.07.2017, learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition having been filed by the claimant/petitioner, saddled the appellant/Insurance Company with liability to pay compensation on behalf of respondent No.2 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual payment. In the aforesaid background, appellantInsurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid impugned award passed by learned tribunal below. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis- -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) Once it stood proved on record vide Inquiry Report Ext. RW-1/A that the deceased as well as other passengers were travelling in the ill-fated truck as gratuitous passengers, appellantInsurance Company could not be fastened with liability to pay compensation on account of death of deceased Madhu Devi. (ii) Learned Tribunal below has awarded excessive amount under conventional heads in violation of recent judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, decided on 31.10.2017. 8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that on the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned Tribunal below framed specific issue that, "whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger." 9. 8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that on the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned Tribunal below framed specific issue that, "whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger." 9. Pw-1, Parveen Kumar, tendered his statement by way of affidavit in examination-in-chief, in which he deposed that on 21.06.2009, his wife (deceased Madhu), his mother Mehri Devi had gone to pay obeisance to Mata Kunal Pathri temple and at about 4- 4.30 P.M., when his wife and mother were standing outside the temple on the side of the road, offending truck bearing No. HP-40- 6982, struck against them, due to which his wife (deceased Madhu) died and his mother suffered injuries. This witness deposed that at the time of alleged accident, other people were also standing with him on the road, alongwith wife and mother of the claimant, and they had come to pay obeisance in the temple. At about 4.30. P.M., driver of the offending truck bearing No.HP-40-6982, was turning the vehicle, but he could not control it and it straightway rolled down and struck against the people standing on the road, as a consequence of which, his wife died. In his cross examination said witness admitted that at the time of accident, he was not present on the spot. . 10. Pw-2, Tarsem Kumar, also tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, in which he deposed similar to PW-1, that on 21.06.2009, he had come to pay obeisance in the temple. He was standing outside the temple on the side of the road. Other people were also standing with him on the road, who had come there to pay obeisance in the temple. Madhu Devi and Mehri Devi, were also standing with him and were known to him. Many people and children of Village Kot Kawala were also standing there. At about 4.30. P.M.,the driver of the offending truck bearing No.HP-40-6982, was turning the vehicle, but he could not control it and it straightway rolled down and hit the people standing on the side of the road, as a consequence of which, wife and mother of the claimant got badly injured. This witness specifically stated that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver. This witness specifically stated that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver. In his cross examination, he admitted that 12 persons had died and 56 persons sustained injuries. Cross- examination conducted on this witness nowhere suggests that the opposite party was able to extract something contrary to what this witness stated in his examination-in-chief. 11. Magisterial enquiry report, RW-1/A, duly proved by RW-1 Swaroop Kumar, Personal Assistant of Additional District Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala, clearly establishes on record that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Driver, Ajay Kumar as he had parked the truck on a sloppy ground facing a wall. He had not applied Gukta with a view to prevent self movement of the vehicle due to gravity or any internal fault. This report suggests that the passengers of the truck, especially the ladies and children were boarding the truck and the driver had left it unattended and even the cabin of the truck, where the technical control panel and gear of truck exists, was open and passengers in the cabin might have caused gear lever to come to its neutral position, resulting into rolling down of the vehicle. But if the report of the enquiry of the enquiry officer is read in its entirety, it nowhere suggests that deceased Madhu and mother of complainant, were traveling in the truck as gratuitous passengers. Statements of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly reveal that at the time of accident, both the above named deceased Madhu and Mehri were standing on the road. 12. Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant-Insurance Company, placed heavy reliance upon enquiry report RW-1/A to demonstrate that the deceased, who happened to be wife of the claimant was traveling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger and accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the truck, but as has been taken note herein above, evidence adduced on record by respective parties, especially enquiry report RW-1/A nowhere suggests that the deceased and other passengers had gone to Kunal Pathri to pay obeisance to deity in the ill-fated truck. 13. 13. Moreover, if the reply filed by owner of the vehicle, respondent No.2, Jagdish Chand is perused in its entirety, it clearly suggests that the ill-fated vehicle was actually going to Pathankot to fetch some construction material and near Kunal Pathri, driver of the vehicle had parked the vehicle on the roadside. As per owner of the vehicle, accident took place on account of mishandling of the gear by children. On account of overwhelming evidence available on record, as has been discussed in above, it is difficult to conclude that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident. Hence, no interference, if any, is called for qua the findings given by the learned tribunal below qua issue No.4. 14. Similarly, this Court finds that the claimant has specifically pleaded that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 6000/- from agricultural pursuits and from sale of milk. Though, the aforesaid assertion made in the claim petition has not been specifically denied by the respondent including appellant/insurance company, but otherwise also, no illegality, if any, can be found in the findings of the Court whereby, it has proceeded to assess monthly income of deceased wife of the claimant as Rs.6000/-. 15. Hon''Ble Apex Court in case title as Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2010) AIR SC 3426 has categorically held that it is not always possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by a wife/mother to the family, but for the purpose of awarding compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary assessment is to be made about the services of the housewife/mother. While making pecuniary assessment on account of death of wife/mother, term "services" is required to be given broader meaning. It must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. 16. In the case at hand, record reveals that at the time of accident, age of deceased was 27 years, as is evident from post mortem report Ext.P-B and as such, it can be easily presumed that she was earning Rs. 6000/- per month from agricultural pursuits and also by selling milk. 16. In the case at hand, record reveals that at the time of accident, age of deceased was 27 years, as is evident from post mortem report Ext.P-B and as such, it can be easily presumed that she was earning Rs. 6000/- per month from agricultural pursuits and also by selling milk. But since, Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgment has categorically held that the services rendered by wife and mother are required to be given broader meaning and it also includes loss of personal care and attention given by them to their children as a mother and to the husband as a wife, learned Tribunal below has rightly assessed income of deceased wife to be Rs.9000/- per month and as such, no interference, if any, is called for qua that finding. 17. Having carefully perused the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157, this Court finds that the tribunal below has erred, while granting compensation under the conventional rates. In light of the judgment passed in Pranay Sethi (supra), only a sum of Rs. 40,000/- would have been granted in favour of the claimant on account of consortium, but tribunal below has proceeded to award sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh and as such, on this count, award passed by tribunal below needs modification. Similarly, only Rs. 15,000/- could have been awarded on account of funeral expenses, whereas, tribunal below has granted Rs. 25,000/-. However, tribunal below has failed to award any amount on account of loss of estate and as such, Rs.15,000/- are required to be awarded on account of loss of estate. As far as awarding of interest @ 7.5% is concerned, this Court finds no illegality and as such, same is upheld. 18. Since, no evidence has been led by the claimant qua the expenses, if any, made on account of transportation charges for carrying dead body of deceased no amount could have been awarded by tribunal below qua that accident. 19. This Court finds from the bare reading of the impugned award that tribunal below has applied multiplier of 15' taking into consideration the age of claimant, not of the deceased. 19. This Court finds from the bare reading of the impugned award that tribunal below has applied multiplier of 15' taking into consideration the age of claimant, not of the deceased. Since, age of the claimant was 36 years, tribunal below has applied multiplier of 15, whereas, as per judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , it is the age of deceased which is to be taken into consideration while applying multiplier. Since, it is proved that deceased was 27 years, at the time of accident, as is evident from the post mortem report Ext. PB, multiplier of 17' is required to applied. 20. Learned counsel representing the claimant while referring to judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), argued that since the deceased was self-employed and below 40 years of age, as such, an addition of 40% of the established income should be awarded, in view of Pranay Sethi (supra), wherein it has been held as under:- "59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) xxxxxxx. (ii) xxx. (iii) xxx. (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) xxxx. (vi) xxx. (vii) xxxx. (viii) xxxx." 21. Accordingly, the claimant is also held entitled to 40% addition to the established income of the deceased and thus the, loss of dependency, would be calculated as under: Monthly income of the deceased Rs.9000 Income after 1/3rd deduction Rs.6000 Income after 40% addition Rs.8400 Loss of dependency 8400x17x12=17,13,600 22. 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. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that this Court has no power to award any extra amount/enhance the amounts already awarded by learned Tribunal below, since no cross-objections/appeal has been filed by the claimants. On the issue of power of an appellate court to make additional award, reference may be made to a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash and others vs. Divisional Manager and another, (2011) 14 SCC 639 , whereby, it has been held that amount of compensation can be enhanced by an appellate court, while exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. It would be profitable to reproduce following para of the judgment herein:- "Order 41 Rule 33 CPC enables an appellate court to pass any order which ought to have been passed by the trial court and to make such further or other order as the case may require, even if the respondent had not filed any appeal or cross-objections. This power is entrusted to the appellate court to enable it to do complete justice between the parties. Order 41 Rule 33 CPC can be pressed into service to make the award more effective or maintain the award on other grounds or to make the other parties to litigation to share the benefits or the liability, but cannot be invoked to get a larger or higher relief. For example, where the claimants seek compensation against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle and the tribunal makes the award only against the owner, on an appeal by the owner challenging the quantum, the appellate court can make the insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, alongwith the owner, even though the claimants had not challenged the non-grant of relief against the insurer." 23. In view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, award passed by Tribunal below is modified in the following manners:- Head Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency 17,13,600 Loss of estate 15000 Funeral charges 15000 Consortium 40,000 Total compensation 17,83,600 24. So far interest rate awarded by learned Tribunal below is concerned, this court does not see any reason to interfere with the same, which is accordingly upheld. 25. So far interest rate awarded by learned Tribunal below is concerned, this court does not see any reason to interfere with the same, which is accordingly upheld. 25. 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. 26. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.