JUDGMENT : Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (herein after referred to as “ the Act”), lays challenge to award dated 16.3.2019, passed by the learned MACT-III, Shimla camp at Rohru, HP, in MAC case No. 11-R/2 of 2017, titled Balma Devi and others v. Sharda Devi and Ors, whereby the learned Tribunal below while allowing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, having been filed by the respondents-claimants No. 1 and 2 (in short “the claimants”), saddled the Appellant-Insurance Company with liability to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,30,000 a/w interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 2. Precisely, facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- alongwith statutory interest from the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondents No. 4 and 5 being owner and driver on account of death of Sh. Hem Raj, being his legal heirs. Claimants claimed that on 13.2.2017, deceased Hemraj was going to Tikkar in a vehicle bearing registration No.HP-10A-9256 alongwith other occupants and at that relevant time vehicle was being driven by respondent No.5, Sanjeev Kumar. Unfortunately, aforesaid vehicle met with an accident, as a consequence of which, all the occupants got injured, but person named Hem raj died on the spot. Factum with regard to accident came to be reported to the police vide FIR No. 0012 of 2017 dated 13.2.2017, whereafter case under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC was registered against respondent No.5. Claimants claimed that at the time of the accident, deceased Hem Raj was 42 years old and he being mason and plumber used to earn sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. 3. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be resisted by the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondents No. 4 and 5, who, in their reply, though nowhere disputed the factum with regard to the accident, but claimed that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, which was coming from Tikkar side. Appellant-Insurance company claimed that since vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and driver of the vehicle was not holding effective and valid licence, it cannot be fastened with the liability to indemnify the insured. 4. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned MACT below farmed following issues: “1. Whether deceased Hem Raj died on 13.02.2017 at place Kasheni Kainchi, Tehsil Rohru due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, while he was driving vehicle bearing registration No.HP-10A-92567? OPP 2. In case, issue No. 1 is proved in affirmation, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver who was coming from opposite side? OPR-1 and 2 5. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not having valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR-3 6. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of terms and condition of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3 7. Whether the deceased was travelling in the ill-fated vehicle as gratuitous passenger, as alleged? OPR-3 8. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, as alleged? OPR-3 9. Relief” 5. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 16.3.2019, learned Tribunal below on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the Appellant-Insurance Company and respondents No. 4 and 5 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,30,000/- to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. But since Appellant-Insurance Company being insurer was directed to indemnity the insured, it has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid award passed by the court below. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that primarily, challenge to the impugned award has been laid on the ground of quantum. 7. Mr. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that primarily, challenge to the impugned award has been laid on the ground of quantum. 7. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company, while making this Court to peruse the evidence led on record vehemently argued that since at no point of time, it ever came to be proved that deceased at the time of his death was doing work of mason/plumber and he was earning sum of Rs. 20,000/- p.m., court below while assessing his monthly income ought have resorted to the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. He further argued that in the case at hand, court below without any basis, considered monthly income of the deceased Hem Raj to the tune of Rs. 9,000/- which, otherwise, being on higher side, deserves to be reduced/modified. 8. In the case at hand, pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the claimants clearly reveal that though claimants claimed that the deceased was working as mason/plumber at the time of his death, but no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record with regard to occupation and monthly income of the deceased and the court below while applying the guess work, considered monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 9000/-. 9. It is well settled by now that in the absence of any specific evidence with regard to income, court is necessarily required to resort to the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, especially in the cases where deceased or insured is stated to be skilled or semi skilled worker. Though in the case at hand, there is no material available on record that the deceased Hem Raj was skilled mason/plumber, but even if his income is taken as of plumber/mason, same cannot be said to be Rs.9000 p.m. Reliance is placed on judgment dated 23.4.2018, rendered by this Court in FAO No. 43 of 2018, titled Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Ishwar Singh and Ors, , wherein it has been categorically held that in the absence of any specific evidence/documentary evidence of income of the deceased, the income is to be taken/assessed on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment read as under: “10. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment read as under: “10. After having carefully heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties and perused the record, this Court finds considerable force in the argument of Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company that claimant has not led on record specific evidence to prove his income. No doubt, claimant has claimed that he was studying in class 12th at the time of the accident and was doing part time work by selling milk, but no evidence has been led on record in this regard. Needless to say, learned Tribunal below in the absence of specific evidence, if any, led on record by the claimant with regard to his income, ought to have assessed income on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident. 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. 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). 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/-.” 11. 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, which reads 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. Reliance is also placed upon judgments passed by this Court in case titled Govind Yadav v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2012(1) ACJ 28, Mast Ram v. Yogesh Azta and Ors, decided on 4.5.2017, FAO No. 488 of 2016, ICICI Lombard v. Kala Devi and Ors in FAO No. 9 of 2019 dated 30.5.2019, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kamal Kishore and Ors., decided on 5.7.2019 and Minimum wages notification for the year, 2016 by the State of HP. 11. In the case at hand, accident in question occurred in the year, 13.2.2017, meaning thereby minimum wages payable at that particular time is required to be taken into consideration for assessing income of the deceased. It is not in dispute that w.e.f 1.4.2017, minimum wages prevalent in the State of HP qua the category of worker engaged in the construction or maintenance of roads or building, operations, stone breaking and stone crushing was Rs. 227 per day, and as such, monthly income of the deceased Hem raj comes out to be 227x30= Rs.6810/-. 12. Since deceased at the time of the accident, was 42 years old and was in self employment, he is/was required to be given addition of 25% on account of future prospects in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and Ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Vide aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that no amount, if any, can be 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. 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. 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. 59.8 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.” 13. 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.” 13. 1/3rd of the income is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Learned tribunal below taking note of the age of the deceased has rightly applied multiplier of 14. In the aforesaid background loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 14 is calculated as 9,53,400/-. Apart from above, this Court finds that tribunal below has erred in not awarding filial consortium in favour of claimants 2 and 3, who at the time of the accident, were minor and as such, sum of Rs. 40,000/- each, is required to be awarded in their favour. 14. Reliance is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Somwati and Ors, in Civil appeal No. 3093 of 2020 (a/w connected matters), wherein it has been held 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 Somwati’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. 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. 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. 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.” 15. In view of the discussions made supra and the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore-cited judgments, impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below needs to be modified to the following extent: Heads Amount in Rs. Final amount after deduction /addition 1 Loss of dependency (a) Income Rs. 6810 per month with 25% addition on future prospects) 6810x25/100= 1702 i.e. 6810+1702=8512 9,53,400 9,53,400 (b) 1/3rd deduction on personal expenses i.e. 8512/3=2837 (c) Loss of dependency =8512-2837=5675 (d) Annual dependency 5675x12=68100 with multiplier of 14 i.e. 68100x14= 9,53,400/- 2. loss of estate (in favour of wife) 15,000 15,000 3. Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 each to the claimants) 1,20,000 1,20,000 4. Funeral expenses 15,000 15,000 Total compensation 11,03,400/- 16. Interest @ 9% awarded by the learned tribunal below also appears to be on higher side and as such, same is modified to 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till its deposit. 17. 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 dated 16.3.2019, passed by learned MACT below in MAC Case No. 11-R/2 of 2017, is modified to aforesaid extent only. Needless to say, claimants would be entitled to the interest @ 7.5% on the aforesaid total amount of compensation instead of 9%. Needless to say, claimants would be entitled to the interest @ 7.5% on the aforesaid total amount of compensation instead of 9%. Accordingly, present appeal is disposed of, alongwith all pending applications, if any. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.