JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter ‘Act’) lays challenge to award dated 24.5.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in MAC Petition No. 1-S/2 of 2015, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing claim petition having been filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3/claimants, (hereinafter ‘claimants’) saddled the appellant-insurance company with the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,94,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, to the claimants, from the date of filing of petition, till realization. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the claimants filed a claim petition under S.166 of the Act, seeking claim of Rs. 26,98,000 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of death of one Sanju, being his dependents/legal representatives, averring therein that the deceased was working as a Cleaner in vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-9C-2572, owned by respondent No. 4 and he was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. Claimants claimed that the aforesaid vehicle being driven by respondent No. 5, met with an accident on 18.11.2014, near Dhilogarh, on Chhaila Mohari road, as a consequence of which, deceased Sanju suffered injuries and later on succumbed to the same. FIR No. 177, dated 18.11.2014, qua rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5 came to be lodge at Police Station Theog. Claimants claimed that the deceased was the sole bread winner of the family and after his death, they have lost their support and as such, are liable to be compensated adequately. 3. Claim put forth by claimants came to be resisted by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 being owner and driver, who though have not denied the factum of accident but claimed that the vehicle at that time was not being driven in rash and negligent manner. Both the respondents claimed that accident took place due to sudden defect in the vehicle. 4. Appellant-insurance company refuted the claim on the ground that the deceased was sitting in the vehicle as an unauthorized passenger and driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and as such, it cannot be fastened with liability to indemnify the insured. 5. 4. Appellant-insurance company refuted the claim on the ground that the deceased was sitting in the vehicle as an unauthorized passenger and driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and as such, it cannot be fastened with liability to indemnify the insured. 5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned Tribunal below framed following issues: “(1) Whether Sanju died in a rod side accident on 18.11.2014 at about 4.45 P.M. near Dhilogarh involving Vehicle No. HP-09C-2572 being driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP (2) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation and from whom the claimants are entitled to? OPP (3) Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ? OPR-2 (4) Whether the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of driving the vehicle, if so, its effect? OPR-2 (5) Whether the driver was permitted to ply the vehicle in violation for the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as the provision of contract of insurance? OPR-2 (6) Whether there is a collusion between the claimants and respondents no. 1 and 3? OPR (7) Relief.” 6. Subsequently vide impugned Award dated 24.5.2016, learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition and awarded sum of Rs. 22,94,000/- as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Since the appellant-insurance company, being insurer, came to be fastened with liability to pay compensation, it has approached this court in the instant proceedings. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis the reasoning assigned by learned Tribunal below in the impugned Award, this court finds that appellant-insurance company has laid challenge to award primarily on following grounds: (a) Since the claimants failed to lead/place cogent and convincing documentary evidence with respect to occupation and monthly income of the deceased, there was no occasion for it to asses income of the deceased at Rs. 9000/- by applying guess work. (b) Learned Tribunal below has erred, while awarding amounts under certain conventional heads in violation of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 8. 9000/- by applying guess work. (b) Learned Tribunal below has erred, while awarding amounts under certain conventional heads in violation of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, while inviting attention of this court to judgments dated 23.4.2018 rendered in FAO No. 43 of 2018, titled Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Ishwar Singh and judgment dated 13.12.2021 rendered in FAO No. 227 of 2019, titled NIC Ltd. vs. Balma, contended that in cases, where there is no specific proof with regard to income of deceased, courts, while considering compensation, are required to resort to provisions of Minimum Wages Act. 9. Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate, learned counsel for the claimants, contended that since it has come in evidence that deceased was being paid Rs. 9,000/- by owner of vehicle, learned Tribunal below rightly assessed his income at Rs. 9,000/- per month. While fairly admitting that learned Tribunal below has wrongly awarded some amounts under conventional heads, Mr. Sethi, also admitted that in light of Pranay Sethi supra, 40% addition, in place of 50% on account of future prospect could be given keeping in view the fact that the deceased was 21 years old at the time of accident and was in self employment. He further submitted that in light of Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and Others, Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 decided on 18.9.2018, sum of Rs. 40,000/- each, is/was required to be awarded to the claimants, on account of consortium. Mr. Sethi, invited attention of this court to judgment dated 7.9.2021 passed by this court in FAO No. 450 of 2017, titled National Insurance Company Limited vs. Herinder and Others, to claim that in similar facts, income of mason has been taken as Rs.12000 in the year, 2012, and as such, impugned Award passed by learned Tribunal below in this regard is not required to be interfered with. 10. Pleadings and evidence adduced on record by respective parties clearly reveal that though the claimants claimed that the deceased was working as a Helper-cum-Cleaner in the ill-fated vehicle and was being Rs. 9,000/- per month, but admittedly no documentary evidence ever came to be led on record to prove occupation as well as monthly income of the deceased. 10. Pleadings and evidence adduced on record by respective parties clearly reveal that though the claimants claimed that the deceased was working as a Helper-cum-Cleaner in the ill-fated vehicle and was being Rs. 9,000/- per month, but admittedly no documentary evidence ever came to be led on record to prove occupation as well as monthly income of the deceased. Though owner of the vehicle namely Davinder, while deposing as RW-1 in his statement/affidavit, Ext. RW-1/A, admitted that the deceased was being paid Rs. 9,000/- per month but that may not be sufficient to prove monthly income of the deceased. At the first instance, claimants, are/were under obligation to prove occupation of the deceased at the time of accident and thereafter, evidence, if any, with regard to salary is/was required to be led on record. Save and except the oral testimony of RW-1, there is no material available on record to prove occupation and monthly income of the deceased, as such, learned Tribunal below while assessing monthly income of the deceased, ought to have resorted to provisions of Minimum Wages Act, as has been held in Ishwar Singh and Balma (supra), wherein it has been held that in the absence of documentary proof of income, reference is to be made to the minimum wage prevalent at the time of accident. 11. In the case at hand, accident took place in the year 2014, and as such, wages payable to unskilled/skilled labour in that year, are/were to be taken into consideration, while assessing monthly income of the deceased. Since appellant-insurance company has not been able to refute that at the time of accident, deceased was working as a Helper-cum-Cleaner, this court, deems it fit to assess income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000 in place of Rs. 9,000/- as assessed by learned Tribunal below. Otherwise also, by applying provisions of Minimum Wages Act, monthly income of the deceased on the basis of monthly wages of the year 2014, would be approximately Rs. 5,400 and as such, this court deems it fit to assess same at Rs. 6,000/-. However, while calculating loss of dependency, 1/3rd deduction is to be made from the income of deceased, as per in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 12. 5,400 and as such, this court deems it fit to assess same at Rs. 6,000/-. However, while calculating loss of dependency, 1/3rd deduction is to be made from the income of deceased, as per in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 12. Similarly, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi, only 40% addition on account of loss of future prospects could be given to the claimants in place of 50%, since the deceased was not in regular employment and was 21 years of age. So far multiplier is concerned, same has been rightly applied by learned Tribunal below, in view of the latest law. Thus the loss of dependency would be assessed as under: Established monthly income of deceased Rs. 6,000 Income after addition of 40% Rs. 8,400/- Net income after deduction of 1/3rd amount i.e. 8,400 x 1/3 = 2800 Rs. 5,600/- Net loss of dependency 5,600 x 12 x 18 Rs. 12,09,600/- 13. Learned Tribunal below also awarded certain amounts under conventional heads i.e. loss of love and affection, which could not be awarded in terms of Pranay Sethi. Similarly in terms of Pranay Sethi, only sums of Rs. 15,000/- each could have been awarded for loss of estate and funeral charges but learned Tribunal below has awarded Rs. 1.00 Lakh and Rs. 50,000/- each under aforesaid head, as such, the award needs to be modified to the afore extent also. 14. Similarly, as per Magma (supra), Rs. 40,000/- each ought to have been awarded to the claimants as consortium but learned Tribunal below has awarded Rs. 1.00 Lakh to claimant No. 1, which also needs to be modified. 15. 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.” 16. Consequently in view of above, award passed but learned Tribunal below needs to be modified in following manner: Head Amount Loss of dependency Rs. 12,09,600/- Consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- each to all the claimants Rs. 1,20,000/- Funeral charges Rs. 15,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs. 13,59,600/- 17. So far interest rate awarded by learned Tribunal below is concerned, same calls for no interference. 18. 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. 19. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.