JUDGMENT : VIRENDER SINGH, J. 1. Both the aforesaid appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as these appeals have arisen out of the award dated 1.4.2017, passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’), in Claim Petition No. 15-S/2 of 2013, titled as, Kamla & others vs. M/s Som Dutt Builders Pvt. Ltd. & others. 2. By way of award dated 1.4.2017, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by respondents No.1 to 3, in FAO No. 424 of 2017 by awarding a sum of Rs. 17,65,000/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till deposit. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fasten upon the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned Tribunal. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeals, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:- The claimants, being widow, minor daughter and minor son of deceased Dhan Bahadur had filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), seeking compensation on account of death of Dhan Bahadur, who expired in a roadside accident, which, according to the claim petition, had taken place on 16.3.2011, in village Dangyari near Naina Tikker, on Kumarhatti-Nahan road, tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P., involving vehicle No. HP 71-5105 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No. 1, driven by respondent No. 2, and insured with respondent No. 3. 4.1 According to the claimants, the accident had taken place on 16.3.2011, on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, in which, predecessor-in-interest of the claimants had sustained fatal injuries. After the accident, he was taken to Regional Hospital, Solan, from where, he was referred to IGMC, Shimla. However, keeping in view the serious condition, he was further referred to PGI, Chandigarh, but, on the third day of the accident, he had expired. After the accident, he was taken to Regional Hospital, Solan, from where, he was referred to IGMC, Shimla. However, keeping in view the serious condition, he was further referred to PGI, Chandigarh, but, on the third day of the accident, he had expired. 4.2 The information regarding the accident was given to the Police, upon which, FIR No. 15/2011, dated 16.3.2011 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, with Police Station, Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P. Since, the accident had solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, as such, claimants have sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% interest per annum, from the date of accident, till its realization from the respondents. 5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. 6. Respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed their joint reply, in which, factum of accident has not been disputed. Other contents of the claim petition have been denied by them. However, factum of registration of the FIR has impliedly been admitted by pleading that contents of para-9 as matter of record. 7. The Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has filed its separate reply by taking preliminary objections, qua the fact that claimants have no cause of action to file the present petition, nor respondents No. 1 and 2 have disclosed the correct and complete particulars of Insurance Policy. According to the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 was not having valid and effective driving license, at the time of accident. As such, the vehicle is stated to be driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The claim petition is stated to have been filed by the claimants in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2. 8. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge. 9. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made by the respondents to dismiss the claim petition. 10. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 19.4.2014:- 1. Whether the accident resulting into the death of Dhan Bahadur, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was the result of rashness or negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 in driving truck/tipper bearing registration No. HP71-5105 owned by respondent No. 1, as alleged? Whether the accident resulting into the death of Dhan Bahadur, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was the result of rashness or negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 in driving truck/tipper bearing registration No. HP71-5105 owned by respondent No. 1, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to claim sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- alongwith interest from the respondents jointly and severally, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the vehicle in question had not been plied by respondents No. 1 and 2, as per terms and conditions of the policy, as alleged? OPR-3. 4. Whether the driving license possessed by respondent No. 2 was not valid and effective to drive the vehicle in question? OPR-3. 5. Relief. 12. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 13. After the closure of evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal has decided the petition, by passing the impugned award, as referred to above. 14. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, Insurance Company has preferred FAO (MACT) No. 424 of 2017, assailing the award, mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,500/- per month. According to the Insurance Company, no documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that the income of the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, during his life time, was Rs. 7500/- per month. 15. In addition to this, the impugned award has also been assailed in the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly granted 50% addition in the monthly income of the deceased on account of his future prospects, had he been alive, as he was working in unorganized/private sector. 15.1 The impugned award has also been assailed on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head “loss of love and affection” and Rs. 25,000/- under the head, “Funeral expenses”. Similarly, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was awarded to the claimants, under the head “Loss of consortium and loss of estate” has also been assailed. The rate of interest, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, has also been assailed, by way of present appeal. 16. On the basis of above, Mr. 25,000/- under the head, “Funeral expenses”. Similarly, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was awarded to the claimants, under the head “Loss of consortium and loss of estate” has also been assailed. The rate of interest, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, has also been assailed, by way of present appeal. 16. On the basis of above, Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate, appearing for the Insurance Company, heavily relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 680 , has prayed that the award may kindly be modified by reducing the compensation accordingly. 17. The claimants have preferred FAO No. 473 of 2017 with a prayer that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased, as Rs. 7500/- per month, whereas, according to the evidence, so adduced, by the claimants, the income of the deceased has been proved to be Rs. 15,000/-per month. 18. Similarly, the enhancement in the awarded amount has also been sought on the ground that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the head ‘Love and affection’, whereas, the same is required to be enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. 19. According to the claimants, nothing has been awarded to them, under the head “expectation of life”. The amount, which has been awarded under the head “loss of consortium”, is also stated to be on the lower side. 20. On the basis of above facts, Ms.Dhanwanti, Advocate, appearing for the claimants, has prayed that the compensation amount may kindly be enhanced accordingly. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. Nasir and another, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 987 has held that the provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial piece of legislation and the endeavour of the Court/Tribunal should be to provide “just compensation”. The relevant paras 23 and 24 of the judgment are reproduced as under:- “23. Both, the 1923 Act and 1988 Act are beneficent legislation insofar as they provide for payment of compensation to the workmen employed by the employers and/or by use of motor vehicle by the owner thereof and/or the insurer to the petitioners suffering permanent disability. The amount of compensation is to be deter-mined in terms of the provisions of the respective Acts. The amount of compensation is to be deter-mined in terms of the provisions of the respective Acts. Whereas in terms of the 1923 Act, the Commissioner who is a quasi judicial authority, is bound to apply the principles and the factors laid down in the Act for the purpose of de-termining the compensation, Section 168 of the 1988 Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just. 24. Both the Acts aim at providing for expeditious relief to the victims of accident. In these cases, the accidents took place by reason of use of motor vehicles. Both the statutes are beneficial ones for the workmen as also the third parties. The benefits thereof are available only to the persons specified under the Act besides under the Contract of Insurance. The statutes, therefore, deserve liberal construction. The legislative intent contained therein is required to be interpreted with a view to give effect thereto.” (Self emphasis supplied) 22. Being guided by the above decision, now, this Court would proceed further to determine the fact whether compensation amount, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, falls within the definition of “just compensation” or not? 23. So far as the age of the deceased, at the time of death, is concerned, as per the claim petition, Dhan Bahadur, at the time of death, was about 35 years of age. In the absence of any document, contrary to the age of the deceased, as mentioned in the post mortem report, this Court has no hesitation to hold that at the time of death, the deceased was 35 years of age. 24. Now, the question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is about the fact whether the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased, during his lifetime, as Rs. 7500/- per month. As per the claim petition, the deceased was a skilled mason and was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month, at the relevant time. These facts have been pleaded in para-6 of the claim petition. The contents of para-6 of the claim petition have simply been denied, as wrong, in the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2. In the pleadings, bifurcation of the earnings of Dhan Bahadur, during his life time, has been pleaded to be Rs. 400/- per day, as daily wages and Rs. The contents of para-6 of the claim petition have simply been denied, as wrong, in the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2. In the pleadings, bifurcation of the earnings of Dhan Bahadur, during his life time, has been pleaded to be Rs. 400/- per day, as daily wages and Rs. 100/- per day, as over time. In the absence of any documentary evidence to show that the mason would also get over time, the said stand of the claimants, in their pleadings, is liable to be ignored. 25. Claimant No. 1, while appearing in the witness box, has also deposed so, by stating that her husband was earning a sum of Rs. 400/- per day, as daily wages and a sum of Rs. 100/- per day, as over time, and as such, according to her, monthly income of her husband, during his life time, was @ Rs. 15000/- per month. In the cross-examination by the Insurance Company, she has categorically stated that no document has been annexed by her with the claim petition to demonstrate that her husband was working with Contractor Manoj Kumar, as mason. Since, the alleged amount of Rs. 100/- per day, as over time is not liable to be taken into consideration. 26. The claimants have examined one Maan Singh, who, at the relevant time, was working as Clerk with Manoj Kumar Contractor, who has categorically stated that deceased was a skilled mason and at the time of accident, was earning a sum of Rs. 400/- as daily wages, and a sum of Rs. 100/- as overtime, per day. 27. In the cross-examination by the learned counsel representing the Insurance Company, this witness, has, although, admitted that they used to maintain the Muster Roll, however, the said document has not been produced by him. In such situation, this Court is of the view that the monthly earning of the deceased, during his lifetime, as assessed by the learned Tribunal, does require interference by this Court, as even in the year 2011, it cannot be expected to hire the services of the mason, on the basis of minimum wages, prevalent at that time. In such situation, this Court is of the view that the monthly earning of the deceased, during his lifetime, as assessed by the learned Tribunal, does require interference by this Court, as even in the year 2011, it cannot be expected to hire the services of the mason, on the basis of minimum wages, prevalent at that time. Minimum wages can only be applied, where there is no evidence on record, whereas, claimant No. 1, who is not a stranger, but the widow of Dhan Bahadur, had categorically stated that her husband was a mason and working with the contractor and was earning a sum of Rs. 400/- per day, or to say, a sum of Rs. 12,000/-per month. 28. In view of the discussions made above to the effect that income of deceased Dhan Bahadur, during his lifetime, which has been held to be Rs. 400/- per day, this Court is of the view that stand of the Insurance Company, qua determining his income, on the basis of Minimum Wages Act, is not justifiable. If the statements of claimant No. 1, as well as, PW-3 Maan Singh are seen in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs. vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs. & others, (2013) 4 SCC 97 , then, there is nothing on record to give an occasion for this Court to disbelieve the version of the witnesses, as referred to above, by holding that they were unworthy of credit. Relevant paragraph 40 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “40. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination-in-chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (See Khem Chand vs. State of H.P., State of H.P. v. Nahar Slingh, Rajinder Pershad vs.Darshana Devi and Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan.)” (Self emphasis supplied) 29. Merely the fact that the PWs could not produce the documentary evidence about the income of the deceased Dhan Bahadur, does not preclude this Court to determine the monthly earnings of Dhan Bahadur, during his lifetime, on the basis of oral evidence. Hence, the earnings of Dhan Bahadur, during his lifetime, are held to be Rs. 12,000/- per month. 30. The learned Tribunal, in this case, has added 50% in the earnings of the deceased, on account of future prospects. Admittedly, the deceased was not working in the Public Sector, and was working in an unorganized sector. 31. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, Pranay Sethi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% amount is required to be added in the monthly earnings of deceased, on account of his future prospects, had he been alive, as he was working in unorganized sector. Meaning thereby, his monthly income, during his lifetime comes to Rs.12,000/- (Rs.12,000/-+40% of Rs. 12,000/- i.e. Rs.4800/-) = Rs. 16,800/-. 32. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% amount is required to be added in the monthly earnings of deceased, on account of his future prospects, had he been alive, as he was working in unorganized sector. Meaning thereby, his monthly income, during his lifetime comes to Rs.12,000/- (Rs.12,000/-+40% of Rs. 12,000/- i.e. Rs.4800/-) = Rs. 16,800/-. 32. Keeping in view the number of dependents, and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), 1/3rd is liable to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly contribution towards his family, comes to Rs.16,800/- - Rs.5600/-= Rs.11,200/-. 33. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has applied the multiplier of 16, which is the appropriate multiplier, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 3104 . Apart from this, claimants are also held entitled for a fixed amount of Rs. 15,000/- each, under the heads ‘Loss of contribution’ ‘Loss of estate’ and ‘Funeral expenses’ and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), in which, it has been mandated that the amount under the said heads is liable to be enhanced @ 10% after every three years. 34. Thus, the entitlement of the claimants, for which, they are held entitled, is assessed, as under:- 35. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 36. Accordingly, FAO No. 424 of 2017 is dismissed, whereas, FAO No. 473 of 2017 is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount. The claimants are held entitled for the amount of Rs.23,45,400/-, along with interest @ 7.5%, from the date of filing of petition till the realization of amount. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified in the above terms. The liability has rightly been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 37. Memo of costs be prepared. 38. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back.