JUDGMENT : Instant appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) lays challenge to award dated 30.6.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Shimla, in MAC Petition RBT No. 54-S/2 of 2015, titled Smt. Sarla and others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, whereby, learned Tribunal below, while holding respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter, ‘claimants’) entitled to compensation on account of death of late Dev Dutt, directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 26,44,200/- to the claimants, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that the claimants, being dependents of the deceased Dev Dutt, filed a claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before learned Tribunal below, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 50.00 Lakh on account of death of Shri Dev Dutt, in an accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-07C-1299, owned and being driven by respondent No. 5. Claimants claimed that on 3.5.2015, deceased was traveling in the vehicle in question, being driven by respondent No.5 and the same met with an accident, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver i.e. respondent No.5, in which, deceased Dev Dutt was injured. Unfortunately, Dev Dutt, succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. Claimants claimed that the deceased was working as an attendant on casual basis from the year 2000 onwards in the residence of one Shri Anil Nanda at his home at Summer Hill, Shimla and used to earn Rs. 10,500/- per month. It is further claimed that besides above, the deceased was also working as a cook in P.G. at Aman Home Stay and Sparsh Guest House situate at Chailly, Shimla and was earning Rs. 12,000/- from there. Claimants claimed that they were solely dependent upon the earning of the deceased and as such, on account of his death, are entitled to Rs. 50.00 Lakh as compensation. 3. Aforesaid claim made on behalf of the claimants came to be refuted by respondent No.5, who, in his reply, besides taking preliminary objections of maintainability, claimed that he is not liable to pay any compensation because, at the time of accident, vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. 50.00 Lakh as compensation. 3. Aforesaid claim made on behalf of the claimants came to be refuted by respondent No.5, who, in his reply, besides taking preliminary objections of maintainability, claimed that he is not liable to pay any compensation because, at the time of accident, vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company, in a separate reply, claimed that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, and vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such, it cannot be held liable to indemnify the claimants. 5. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by respective parties, framed following issues: “1. Whether the deceased Dev Dutt died in a motor vehicle accident, took place on 3.5.2015 at 9.15 AM near PNB Chailly, Shimla-5, on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 while driving vehicle No. HP-07C-1299, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, then what should be the quantum and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 6. Whether the vehicle was being driven in salient provision of M.V. Act, as alleged? OPR 7 Whether the vehicle was being driven in breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy? OPR 8. Whether the driver was not holding any valid and effective driving licence., as alleged? 9. Relief.” 6. Subsequently vide impugned Award dated 30.6.2017, learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition and awarded sum of Rs. 26,44,200/- as compensation in favour of the claimants, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% 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-à-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. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, vis-à-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 no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be adduced on record with regard to income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-, learned Tribunal below ought not have considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month, rather ought to have computed the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages payable at the relevant time. (b) The amount awarded by learned Tribunal below under conventional heads is totally contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017)16 SCC 680 . 8. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that with a view to prove the monthly income of the deceased, claimants placed on record salary slip but since the same never came to be proved in accordance with law, learned Tribunal below, ought not have taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/-. He further argued that in such like situations, learned Tribunal below, considering the deceased to be a cook, ought to have resorted to the wages payable to a Cook under Minimum Wages Act, at the relevant time i.e. Rs. 180/- per day. He further argued that it is amply clear from the ratio of Pranay Sethi (supra) that no amount could be awarded under the head of loss of love and affection and on account of consortium, only Rs. 40,000/- could be awarded. While referring to the impugned award, Mr. Thakur, contended that the learned Tribunal below has further erred in awarding Rs. 20,000/- on account of funeral chares whereas, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), only Rs. 15,000/- could be awarded under said head. 9. Ms. 40,000/- could be awarded. While referring to the impugned award, Mr. Thakur, contended that the learned Tribunal below has further erred in awarding Rs. 20,000/- on account of funeral chares whereas, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), only Rs. 15,000/- could be awarded under said head. 9. Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate, appearing for the claimants, while fairly admitting that as per Pranay Sethi, no amount could have been awarded under the head of loss of love and affection, submitted that since the appellant-Insurance Company failed to lead any evidence, suggestive of the fact that at the time of death, deceased was not working as a cook, learned Tribunal below, rightly placed reliance upon salary slip Mark-A. She further submitted that otherwise also, sum of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be said to be on higher side, especially when deceased has left behind his widow, two children and mother. 10. Having carefully perused the evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by respective parties, this court finds that though the claimants while claiming that the deceased prior to his death was working as a care taker, on casual basis, from the year 2000 onwards at the residence of one Anil Nanda at Summer Hill, Shimla, placed on record salary slip suggestive of the fact that the deceased was in receipt of Rs. 10,500/- per month but since the person, namely Anil Nanda, from whom, deceased was getting salary, was never examined, claim of the claimants with regard to monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,500/- never came to be proved in accordance with law. 11. Similarly, claimants though claimed that the deceased apart from rendering services as a care taker at the residence of Anil Nanda, was working as a Cook in Aman Home Stay and Sparsh Guest House and was earning Rs. 12,000/-. Though, no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record qua aforesaid fact, but learned Tribunal below applying guess work, considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,500/- per month. 12. By now, it is well settled that when there is no cogent and convincing evidence with regard to income of a deceased, courts, while assessing income of the deceased/injured, are required to refer to the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. 10,500/- per month. 12. By now, it is well settled that when there is no cogent and convincing evidence with regard to income of a deceased, courts, while assessing income of the deceased/injured, are required to refer to the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. In the case at hand, claim of the claimants is that the deceased, prior to accident/death was working as a care taker in the house of Anil Nanda and apart from that, he was also working as a Cook in Aman Home Stay and Sparsh Guest House, but they failed to prove the income of the deceased, as such, learned Tribunal below, while assessing his income ought to have taken recourse to the minimum wages payable to a Cook in the State, under the Minimum Wages Act. Though, as per material placed on record, minimum wages payable to a Cook in Himachal Pradesh in the year 2015, were Rs. 180/- per day and as such, his monthly income would be Rs. 5400/-, but having taken note of the fact that the deceased was also working as a care taker in the house of aforesaid Anil Nanda, it can be safely concluded that the deceased was earning well above Rs. 5400/- and as such, it would be apt to consider the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000/- per month. 13. Since the deceased was not in regular employment, as per Pranay Sethi, only an addition of 40% on account of loss of future prospects would be permissible, keeping in view the fact that the deceased was 35 years of age, as such, impugned award deserves modification on this count also. Besides this, learned Tribunal below has made deduction of 1/5th towards self expenses, while calculating the loss of dependency, whereas, as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 1/4th deduction was to be made from the assessed income, since the deceased had four dependents i.e. present claimants. 14. In view of above, the total loss of dependency is to be calculated as under: Detail Amount (in Rs.) Monthly income of the deceased 8,000 Income after addition of 40% on account of loss of future prospects i.e. 10000x40/10=3200 11,200 Net income after 1/4th deduction i.e. 11200/4=2800 8400 Total loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 16 8400x12x16 1612800 15. In view of above, the total loss of dependency is to be calculated as under: Detail Amount (in Rs.) Monthly income of the deceased 8,000 Income after addition of 40% on account of loss of future prospects i.e. 10000x40/10=3200 11,200 Net income after 1/4th deduction i.e. 11200/4=2800 8400 Total loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 16 8400x12x16 1612800 15. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, also invited attention of this Court to judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017)16 SCC 680 , to buttress his argument qua the fact that the learned Tribunal below could have awarded amount of Rs. 15,000/- each under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate and no amount could have been awarded on account of loss of expectation of life, as such, impugned award deserves to be modified on this count also. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company further argued that as per Pranay Sethi (supra), only Rs. 40,000/- could be awarded as consortium to claimant No. 1, being wife of the deceased. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for the claimants, while fairly conceding that only Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses could have been awarded and only Rs. 40,000/- could be awarded to claimant No.1, as consortium, being wife of the deceased, made a reference to Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 decided on 18.9.2018, to show that claimants Nos. 2 to 4, being children and mother, respectively, of the deceased are also entitled to parental and filial consortium, respectively, at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. 17. 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.” 18. Consequently in view of above, award passed but learned Tribunal below needs to be modified in following manner. Head Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency 1612800 Funeral charges 15000 Loss of estate 15000 Amount payable to claimants 1682800 Consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each to all the claimants 160000 Total compensation 1802800 19. So far interest rate awarded by learned Tribunal below is concerned, same calls for no interference. So far apportionment of the award amount is concerned, same shall be as awarded by learned Tribunal below i.e. sum of Rs. 16,82,800/- shall be disbursed to claimants No.1, claimants Nos. 2 and 3 and claimant No. 4, in the ratio of 50:20:20:10 and consortium shall be payable to all the claimants at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. 20. 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. 21. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.