JUDGMENT : 1. By way of instant appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’), challenge has been laid to Award dated 19.1.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in MACT No. 38 of 2007, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition, having been filed by the appellants-claimants (hereinafter, ‘claimants’), held respondents Nos. 2 and 3 jointly liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,36,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5 per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that a claim petition under S.166 of the Act, came to be instituted at the behest of the claimants, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 Lakh, on account of death of Chaman Lal in a motor-vehicle accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-58-1710 on 10.10.2006. As per claimants, on 10.10.2006, deceased was coming from Village Bagla to Mandi on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-29-1-0586. He stopped his motorcycle at Chakkar on the left hand side of the road. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-58-1710 came form Mandi, which was being driven by respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner and hit firstly the motorcycle and thereafter the deceased, as a consequence of which, deceased suffered injuries and died on the spot. Claimants, being dependent upon the deceased, file claim petition, as referred to above, stating therein that the deceased was working as a contractor and his monthly income was more than Rs.50,000/- per month. Claimants also claimed that that the motorcycle was totally damaged in the accident and sine they have been left with no source of income, they be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 Lakh. 3. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be resisted on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who though admitted the factum of accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-58-1710 and motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-29A-0586, but asserted that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the tipper. Respondent No.2 specifically denied that the vehicle was stopped at Chakkar on left side of the road and Tipper had hit the stationery motorcycle. 4. Respondent No.2 specifically denied that the vehicle was stopped at Chakkar on left side of the road and Tipper had hit the stationery motorcycle. 4. Respondent No.3 i.e. insurance company, opposed the claim on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal below framed following issues for determination on 16.5.2008: 1. Whether the deceased Chaman Lal died due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper No. HP-58-1710 by respondent Leela Prakash as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR. 4. Whether the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. At the time of accident? OPR-3 5. Relief” 6. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by respective parties, held respondents Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,36,000/- to the claimants, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, claimants have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the impugned award and to enhance the same. Similarly, respondent No. 1 Gautam Nath, filed FAO No. 120 of 2012, titled Gautam Nath and another vs. Shri Duni Chand and others, against the award passed by learned Tribunal below, which has been allowed vide judgment dated 16.12.2016, whereby respondent No.3 Insurance company has been held liable to satisfy the award, otherwise, so far other findings are concerned, same have attained finality till this court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Precisely, the challenge has been laid to the award by the claimants on the ground that learned Tribunal below wrongly considered the income of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month, especially when it stood duly proved on record that the deceased being a contractor was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. 9. Precisely, the challenge has been laid to the award by the claimants on the ground that learned Tribunal below wrongly considered the income of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month, especially when it stood duly proved on record that the deceased being a contractor was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. It has been further claimed by the claimants that since the age of the deceased was 58% years, learned Tribunal below ought to have granted an addition of 10%, while determining the loss of future prospects, in terms of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 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.” 10. Besides above, it has been further claimed by the claimants that the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below under conventional heads i.e. funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium is not as per judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), hence, the impugned award deserves to be enhanced on these accounts also. 11. Having scanned the material available on record, this court finds that though the claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 lakh on the ground that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- per month on account of his being a contractor, but since no specific evidence of income of the deceased ever came to be led on record, learned Tribunal below, applying guess work, proceeded to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. 12. 12. It is not in dispute that the claimants failed to prove on record that the deceased was a contractor by profession as such, in the absence of specific proof of his income, learned Tribunal below ought to have assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages payable to the daily wagers and part timers in the State of Himachal Pradesh at the relevant time. 13. Reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Govind Yadav vs. 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. The Tribunal then proceeded to determine the amount of compensation in lieu of loss of earning 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, the 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, the Tribunal and the High Court should have determined the amount of compensation in lieu of loss of earning by taking the appellant's notional annual income as Rs.36,000/- and the loss of earning on account of 70% 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) 6 SCC 121 . In para 42 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 earning would be Rs.4,53,600/-. 14. In para 42 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 earning would be Rs.4,53,600/-. 14. Reliance is also placed upon judgment rendered by this Court in Smt. Pappi Devi and others vs. Kali Ram and others, Latest HLJ 2008 (Himachal Pradesh) 1440, wherein it has been held 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.70 x 30 = Rs.2100/- and after deducing 1/3rd of the amount i.e. Rs.700/-, for the purpose of dependency is determined as Rs.1400/-.” 15. As per revision of rates of wages to daily wagers and part timers in the State of Himachal Pradesh, deceased being an unskilled person, must be earning at least Rs.200/- per day, meaning thereby that his monthly income must have been around Rs.6,000/-, as such, learned Tribunal below has erred in taking income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-, which is hereby assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month. 16. 16. So far deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses is concerned, same is in conformity with the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , wherein it has been held that where number of dependents is 2-3, 1/3rd deduction is required to be made from the assessed income of the deceased, while determining loss of dependency. 17. So far as claim of the claimants that 10% addition is required to be made to established income of deceased on account of loss of future prospects is concerned, this court finds that in view of Pranay Sethi (supra), 10% addition to the established income of the deceased is required to be made since he was in private employment and at the time of death, his age was 58 years. Similarly, keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of ‘9’ has rightly been applied by learned Tribunal below, which calls for no interference. 18. Thus, the loss of dependency for the claimants can be assessed as below: Established income of the deceased 6000 Income after 10% increase on account of loss of future prospects 6600 Income after 1/3rd deduction 6600-2200 = 4400 Multiplier 9 Loss of dependency 4400x 12 x 9 = 475200 19. Having carefully perused the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds that the tribunal below has wrongly awarded sums of Rs.5,000/- each under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate, which as per Pranay Sethi (supra), ought to have been Rs.15,000/- each, as such, impugned award deserves interference on this count also. 20. Though learned Tribunal below has awarded consortium in favour of claimant No.1(wife-Pano Devi) to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, but not only the amount is on lesser side, rather, an amount of Rs.40,000/-, each is required to be awarded in favour of other claimants viz. Duni Chand and Kumari Preeti, who are the son and daughter of late Chaman Lal, and who have lost care and guidance of a father. As such, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each is required to be awarded in favour of all the claimants. Reliance in this regard is placed on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 decided on 18.9.2018. 21. As such, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each is required to be awarded in favour of all the claimants. Reliance in this regard is placed on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Ors., 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 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.” 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 475200 Loss of estate 15000 Funeral charges 15000 Total 505200 consortium @Rs.40,000/- each to all the claimants i.e. Rs.40,000 x 3 120000 Total compensation 625200 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 475200 Loss of estate 15000 Funeral charges 15000 Total 505200 consortium @Rs.40,000/- each to all the claimants i.e. Rs.40,000 x 3 120000 Total compensation 625200 23. So far interest rate awarded by learned Tribunal below is concerned, same is commensurate as per prevailing rate of interest on the fixed deposits, therefore, calls for no interference. 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 i.e. 60% to claimant/appellant No.1 and 40% to claimant/appellant No.2, out of Rs.5,05,200/- and Rs.40,000/- each to three claimants i.e. appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and proforma respondent No. 4. 25. However, since already this court, in FAO No. 120 of 2012, has held the respondent No.3 Insurance company liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants, aforesaid enhanced amount shall be paid by the respondent No.3-insurance company. 26. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.