JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. By way of instant appeal filed under S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'Act'), challenge has been laid to award dated 24.6.2017, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in MACP (RBT) No. 133-K/II/13/10, titled Jagdish Kumar and others v. Sh. Jagdish Chand and another, whereby claim petition having been filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3/claimants (hereinafter 'claimants') under S. 166 of the Act, praying therein for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10.00 Lakh with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of accident, came to be allowed and an amount of Rs. 5,67,000/- 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 claimants, on account of death of their mother, Mehri Devi, who unfortunately, died in a road accident, filed claim petition under S. 166 of the Act for compensation. Facts, emerging from the record reveal that on 21.06.2009, deceased Mehri Devi, mother of the claimants had gone to Mata Kunal Pathri temple, Dharamshala, to pay obeisance along with others. After paying obeisance in the temple, deceased alongwith many other persons was standing on the roadside. Record further reveals that the offending truck bearing registration No. HP-40-6982, which was being driven by its driver (deceased Ajay Kumar), suddenly came towards the deceased and the other persons standing on the road and struck against them, as a consequence of which, many persons died including the deceased Mehri Devi, mother of the claimants, whereas, many other persons sustained injuries. The claimants claimed before the learned Tribunal below that their mother, Mehri Devi, was earning an amount of Rs. 5000/- per month, from sale of milk and from agriculture pursuits and as such, they are entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondents with interest at the rate of 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. 4, Jagdish Chand as well as driver of the vehicle) deceased Ajay Kumar on 21.6.2009. 3. 10,00,000/- from the respondents with interest at the rate of 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. 4, Jagdish Chand as well as driver of the vehicle) deceased Ajay Kumar on 21.6.2009. 3. The aforesaid claim put forth by claimants, 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. 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. 4. 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 claimants 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 claimants. 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 liability to pay compensation, if any, to the claimants. Appellant-Insurance Company, specifically submitted before learned Tribunal below that the petition is not maintainable against it as the deceased alongwith other passengers was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle. Besides above, appellant/insurance company averred in the reply that the claimants were not dependent on the income of the deceased and as such, they are not entitled to get any compensation. 5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, learned Tribunal below vide order dated 28.11.2013, framed following issues:-- 1. Besides above, appellant/insurance company averred in the reply that the claimants were not dependent on the income of the deceased and as such, they are not entitled to get any compensation. 5. 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 by respondent No. 1, on 21.6.2009, at 4.30 p.m. at Kumal Pathari Mandir? OPP 2. If issue No. 1, is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to 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 4. Whether the deceased was traveling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger? OPR 5. Relief." 6. Subsequently, vide award dated 24.6.2017, learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition, 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 filing of the petition till the date of actual payment. In the aforesaid background, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid award passed by learned tribunal below. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis. the 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, appellant-Insurance Company could not be fastened with liability to pay compensation on account of death of deceased Mehri Devi. (ii) Award has been passed in violation to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 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, Jagdish Kumar, tendered his statement by way of affidavit in examination-in-chief, in which he deposed that on 21.6.2009, his mother and her daughter-in-law, Madhu had gone to pay obeisance to Mata Kunal Pathri temple and at about 4.30 pm, they were injured by the track, which hit them. In his cross-examination, he admitted that 12 persons had died and 56 persons lost their lives in the accident and as many] as 56 persons were injured. However, this witness admitted that the accident did not take place in his presence and he came to know about the accident from the magisterial inquiry. 10. Similarly, PW-2, Tarsem Kumar, has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, wherein he deposed that on 21.6.2009, he had gone to Mata Kunal Pathari Temple to pay obeisance and after paying obeisance, he was standing outside the temple on roadside. He further deposed that at 4/4.30 pm, driver of truck bearing registration No. HP-40-6982 was turning the truck, but it went out of control and rolled down and many persons, including Mehri Devi and Madhu Devi, came under the truck. He stated that the accident took place due to negligence of truck driver. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that all the persons were in the truck at the time of accident. This witness specifically denied the factum that the driver was taking lunch and children opened the cabin of truck and mishandled the gear lever resulting into accident. 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 Gutka with a view to prevent self movement of the vehicle due to gravity or any internal fault. He had not applied Gutka 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 exist, 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 officer is read in its entirety, it nowhere suggests that deceased Mehri Devi was traveling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger. Statements of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly reveal that at the time of accident, Mehri Devi (mother of the claimants) was 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 mother of the claimants 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. 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 on issue No. 4. 14. Similarly, this Court finds that the claimants has specifically pleaded that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5000/- from agricultural pursuits and from sale of milk. Hence, no interference, if any, is called for qua the findings given by the learned tribunal below on issue No. 4. 14. Similarly, this Court finds that the claimants has specifically pleaded that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5000/- from agricultural pursuits and from sale of milk. Though, the aforesaid assertion made in the claim petition has not been specifically denied by the respondents 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 mother of the claimants as Rs. 6,000/-. 15. Hon'ble Apex Court in case title as Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. National Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 2010 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 60 years, as has been deposed by the claimants, which statements to that effect remained un-rebutted, and as such, it can be easily presumed that she was earning Rs. 5,000/- 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. 6,000/- per month and as such, no interference, if any, is called for qua that finding as also qua the deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses. 17. 6,000/- per month and as such, no interference, if any, is called for qua that finding as also qua the deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses. 17. 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 was 60 years of age, as such, an addition of 10% of the established income should be awarded on account of loss of future prospects, 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." 18. So far multiplier applied by learned Tribunal below is concerned, same has been rightly applied as 9' since the deceased was 60 years of age, as such, this court finds no reason to interfere with the same. 19. Thus, the loss of dependency would be calculated as under: Income of the deceased Rs.6000 Income after 1/3 rd deduction Rs.4000 Income after 10% addition Rs.4400 Loss of dependency 4400x9x12=475200 20. Having carefully perused the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , this Court finds that the tribunal below has erred, while granting; compensation under the conventional heads. In light of the judgment passed in Pranay Sethi (supra), no amount could have been awarded under the head, 'loss of love and affection'. Further, the amount awarded under the heads of funeral charges has been awarded on higher side, which should be Rs. 15,000/- only. Also, since no evidence was led on record by the claimants, qua transportation charges, if any, incurred by them on the transportation of dead body of their mother, as such, amount of Rs. 10,000/- has also been awarded wrongly. 15,000/- only. Also, since no evidence was led on record by the claimants, qua transportation charges, if any, incurred by them on the transportation of dead body of their mother, as such, amount of Rs. 10,000/- has also been awarded wrongly. Also, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of estate. Besides this, the claimants, who have lost the care and guidance of their mother, due to her untimely death, are also entitled to parental consortium in light of in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others, Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 decided on 18.9.2018. 21. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that this Count 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 v. Divisional Manager and another, (2011) 14 SCC 639 , whereby, it has been held that amount of compensation can be enhanced by an appellate court, while exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. It would be profitable to reproduce following para of the judgment herein:-- "Order 41 Rule 33 CPC enables an appellate court to pass any order which ought to have been passed by the trial court and to make such further or other order as the case may require, even if the respondent had not filed any appeal or cross-objections. This power is entrusted to the appellate court to enable it to do complete justice between the parties. Order 41 Rule 33 CPC can be pressed into service to make the award more effective or maintain the award on other grounds or to make the other parties to litigation to share the benefits or the liability, but cannot be invoked to get a larger or higher relief. Order 41 Rule 33 CPC can be pressed into service to make the award more effective or maintain the award on other grounds or to make the other parties to litigation to share the benefits or the liability, but cannot be invoked to get a larger or higher relief. For example, where the claimants seek compensation against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle and the tribunal makes the award only against the owner, on an appeal by the owner challenging the quantum, the appellate court can make the insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, alongwith the owner, even though the claimants had not challenged the non-grant of relief against the insurer." 22. In view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, award passed by Tribunal below is modified in the following manners:-- Head Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency 47500 Loss of estate 15000 Funeral charges 15000 Parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each 120000 Total compensation 625200 23. 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. 24. 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. Apportionment of the award amount shall remain as has been directed by learned trial Court. 25. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.