R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against judgment and award dated 15. 12. 1993 passed by Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge, 1st), Lucknow, in Claim Petition No. 89 of 1990, awarding Rs. 1,00,000 with interest as compensation against the appellant new India Assurance Co. Ltd. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal in brief are that it was on 23. 1. 1990 at 7. 15 a. m. that gaurav Srivastava, son of respondent No. 1 aged about 18 years, student of class xi in Government Jubilee Inter College, lucknow, who was going on his cycle to attend his college on Lucknow-Sitapur road near Annu Dharam Kanta, P. S. Hajiganj, lucknow, was knocked down and killed on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. UGI 9520. Gaurav srivastava succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (father and mother of the deceased), thereafter filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lucknow against respondent No. 3 (owner of the vehicle), respondent No. 4, driver of the vehicle and the appellant insurance company claiming amount of Rs. 4,86,000 as compensation. It was pleaded that Gaurav Srivastava was an efficient and brilliant student. The claimants-respondents had lot of hopes and expectations from him, of which the claimants were deprived on account of aforesaid incident. Hence, the claim petition was filed for the above-mentioned relief. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT Nos. 3 and 4 did not contest the claim petition. The petition was contested only by the defendant-appellant, which has denied involvement of the truck in the said incident and alternatively, it was pleaded that the incident took place on account of negligence of the deceased and that amount of compensation claimed by the claimants-respondents was excessive and unreasonable. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed relevant issues in the case. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary. ( 5 ) ON behalf of claimants-respondents sartaj Bahadur Srivastava, Ravindra Prasad srivastava and Anoop Kumar Srivastava were produced as the witnesses, who have supported the case of the claimants, besides other documentary evidence. In rebuttal of the aforesaid evidence, no oral evidence was produced by the appellant. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary. ( 5 ) ON behalf of claimants-respondents sartaj Bahadur Srivastava, Ravindra Prasad srivastava and Anoop Kumar Srivastava were produced as the witnesses, who have supported the case of the claimants, besides other documentary evidence. In rebuttal of the aforesaid evidence, no oral evidence was produced by the appellant. Only the post-mortem report and F. I. R. (paper No. Ga-6 and Ga-7/1), were filed as documentary evidence. The Tribunal after perusal of the evidence on the record, recorded findings on all issues in favour of the claimants-respondents. It was held that the incident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid truck, and that there was no evidence of the negligence on the part of the deceased. The tribunal having recorded said findings, awarded Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at the rate of 15 per cent from the date of filing of the claim petition, i. e. , 16. 4. 90 by judgment and award dated 15. 12. 1993, hence, the present appeal. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently urged that the incident took place on account of negligence of the deceased. Finding recorded by the tribunal to the contrary is against evidence on the record. It was urged that the court below acted illegally in holding that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck and that in any view of the matter, amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive. It was also urged that the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the findings recorded by the court below are based on relevant evidence on the record, oral and documentary, they do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. From the evidence on record, it was conclusively proved that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck in question. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was inadequate and the said amount was liable to be enhanced, it was urged that the appellant had no right to challenge the quantum of compensation. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was inadequate and the said amount was liable to be enhanced, it was urged that the appellant had no right to challenge the quantum of compensation. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed and the amount of compensation was liable to be enhanced by Rs. 3,86,000 with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. ( 8 ) I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. ( 9 ) THE Tribunal has recorded clear and categorical findings to the effect that the driver of the truck was arrested on the spot and that accident took place by the same truck on account of rash and negligent driving. Said findings are based on relevant evidence, oral and documentary, on the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to demonstrate any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the tribunal. I have perused the evidence after going through the statements of witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants and other documentary evidence filed by them. I am satisfied that the truck No. UGI 9520 was involved in the accident. The accident took place at the time and place indicated in the claim petition on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the respondent No. 4. The owner and driver of the truck as stated above did not contest the case. The truck was admittedly insured with the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any error of law or jurisdiction in awarding amount of compensation against the appellant and in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is right in his submission that the insurance company has got no right to question quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this court in Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir singh, 1978 0 ACJ 252 (Allahabad), wherein relying upon the decision of Apex court in British India Genl. Ins. Co. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this court in Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir singh, 1978 0 ACJ 252 (Allahabad), wherein relying upon the decision of Apex court in British India Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Captain Itbar Singh, 1958-65 0 ACJ 1 (SC), it was ruled as under: "almost every other High Court has taken the view that the defences open to an insurance company in a claim under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act are restricted to those specified in section 96 (2) of the Act. [see Hukam Chand insurance Co. Ltd. v. Subhashini Roy, 1971 0 ACJ 156 (Calcutta); Kesavan Nair v. State Insurance Officer, 1971 ACJ 219 (Kerala); Orissa Cooperative Insurance society Ltd. v. Bhagaban Sahu, 1971 0 ACJ 49 (Orissa); Kasturi Lai v. Prabhakar, 1970 0 ACJ 1 (MP); Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rohini Bhan, 1970 0 ACJ 1 1 (Delhi); Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shafali Mukherji, 1970 acj 245 (Allahabad); Padma Devi v. Gurbakhsh Singh, 1973 0 ACJ 460 (Rajasthan); B. Appa Rao v. Dunna Muk-anda Rao, 1973 0 ACJ 222 (Orissa) and northern India Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. L. Krishnan, 1972 0 ACJ 420 (Mysore)]. We accordingly find that it is not permissible for the appellant in F. A. F. O. No. 422 of 1975 to assail the findings of the Claims tribunal on merits. It may, however, be added that, as we shall show while considering the appeal by the truck owner even on merits there is no substance in this appeal. ( 11 ) SIMILARLY, in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaik Saibaqtualla, 1992 acj 858 (AP), it was ruled as under:"it is now well-established that an insurer cannot take pleas beyond the scope of section 96 (2) of the Act. British India Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Captain itbar Singh, 1958-65 0 ACJ 1 (SC), is an authority for this. It should be remembered that it is not open to the insurance company to question the quantum of compensation. Raddipalli Chinnarao v. Reddi Lorurdu, 1980 0 ACJ 470 (AP), which is a Division Bench decision, is an authority for this proposition. " ( 12 ) IN view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it is not open to the appellant to question quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants. Raddipalli Chinnarao v. Reddi Lorurdu, 1980 0 ACJ 470 (AP), which is a Division Bench decision, is an authority for this proposition. " ( 12 ) IN view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it is not open to the appellant to question quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants. ( 13 ) SO far as the question of enhancement of the amount of compensation is concerned, it may be noted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not file any cross-appeal or objection in the present case. However, non-filing of the cross-appeal or objection is of no consequence, as in appropriate cases, this court can enhance amount of compensation even if the crossappeal or objection is not filed. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions in General Manager, Kerala state Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma thomas, 1994 0 ACJ 1 (SC); Shanti Bai v. Charan Singh, 1998 0 ACJ 848 (SC); Divisional Controller now General Manager, karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. v. J. D. Sigamany, 1999 0 ACJ 977 (Karnataka); sajanbai v. lllias Mohammad, 1999 ACJ 551 (MP); Ram Kumar v. Mahaveer, 1998 acj 1073 (Rajasthan) and Hanuman Sant v. Madan Lai, 1998 0 ACJ 918 (Rajasthan ). ( 14 ) IN the above noted decisions, it has been held that in appropriate cases even if the cross-appeal or cross-objection is not filed, appellate court can enhance amount of compensation. ( 15 ) IN the present case, it has been held and is also not disputed that deceased gaurav Srivastava was a young boy aged about 18 years, a student of class XI. Accident cut short his life tenure. Had he been alive, he would have made mark in his life and would have earned a fortune for himself and for his parents. In similar cases noted above where the ages of deceased ranged from 17 years to 20 years, appellate courts have enhanced the amount of compensation substantially. In the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 acj 1 (SC), the amount of compensation claimed was Rs. 10,00,000. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs. 58,760, same was enhanced by the Apex Court to rs. 2,25,000. In Shanti Bais case, 1998 acj 848 (SC), the amount claimed as compensation was Rs. 10,00,000. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 acj 1 (SC), the amount of compensation claimed was Rs. 10,00,000. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs. 58,760, same was enhanced by the Apex Court to rs. 2,25,000. In Shanti Bais case, 1998 acj 848 (SC), the amount claimed as compensation was Rs. 10,00,000. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs. 40,000, the same was enhanced by the Supreme Court to Rs. 1,50,000. In Hanuman Sants case, 1998 0 ACJ 918 (Rajasthan), amount of compensation was Rs. 1,50,000. In another case, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 66,300, the said amount was enhanced by the High court to Rs. 1,14,800. In Haji Zainullah khan v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 0 ACJ 993 (SC), a student of VIII standard was killed, the Supreme Court awarded amount of Rs. 1,50,000. In Nagar mai Mishra v. Lai Chand, 1998 0 ACJ 39 (Rajasthan), a student of class X was killed in an accident and amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was awarded as compensation. Similarly, in Ram Kumar v. Mahaveer, 1998 ACJ 1073 (Rajasthan), on the death of a student aged about 18 years, Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs. 45,000 which was enhanced to Rs. 1,49,000. In view of these decisions, in my opinion, the amount of compensation in the present case is also liable to be enhanced. I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice, if I enhance the amount of compensation by rs. 50,000. ( 16 ) THE appeal has got no force, same is, hereby, dismissed with costs. However, prayer for enhancement of the amount of compensation made by learned counsel for the respondents is accepted in part and the said amount is enhanced by amount of rs. 50,000 with interest at the same rate and from the same date as awarded by the tribunal. The appellant is directed to pay the amount of compensation as awarded by the court below and as enhanced by this court, within a period of one month from today. The amount, if any, paid to the claimants-respondents, shall be adjusted. Appeal dismissed. .