R. H. ZAIDI, J. Present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against judgment and award dated 15-12-1993 passed by Motor Acci dent Claims Tribunal (1st Addl. District Judge), Lucknow, in Claim Petition No. 99/90, awarding Rupees one lac, with in terest as compensation against the appel lant New India Assurance Co. Limited. 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 Anna Dharani Kama, P. S. Hajiganj, Lucknow, was knocked down and killed on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. UGI-9s20. Gaurav Srivastava succumbed to his in juries on the spot. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (father and mother of the deceased), thereafter filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lucknow against respondent No. 3 (owner of the vehicle), respondent No. 4 driver of the vehicle and the appellant Insurance Co. claiming amount of Rs. 4,86,000 as com pensation. It was pleaded that Gaurav Srivastava was an efficient and brilliant student. Claimants-respondents had tot of hopes and expectations from him, of which claimants were deprived oh account of aforesaid incident. Hence, the claim petition was filed for; the abovementioned relief. 3. Defendants-respondents Nos. 3 and 4 did not contest the claim petition. The petition was contested only by the defendants- appellant, which has denied involvement of the truck in the said inci dent 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 documen tary. " 5. On behalf of the claimant-respon dents Sartai Bahadur Srivastava, Ravindra Prasad Snvastava and Anoop Kumar Srivastava were produced as witnesses, who 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. 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 find ings, awarded an amount of rupees one lac with interest @ 15% from the date of filing of the claim petition, i. e. , 16-4-1990 by judgment and award dated 15-12-1993, hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently urged that the inci dent 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 com pensation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 7. On the other hand, learned Coun sel appearing for the contesting respon dent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the find ings 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 com pensation awarded by the claim 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 @ 15% per annum. 8. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the par ties and also perused the record. 9. 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 @ 15% per annum. 8. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the par ties 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 documen tary, 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 state ment of witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants and other documentary evidence filed by them. I am satisfied that the truck No. UGI-9502 was involved in the accident, the accident took place at the time and place indicated in the claim peti tion, on account of rash and negligent driv ing of the truck toy the respondent No. 4. The owner and the driver of the truck as stated above, did not contest the case. The truck was admittedly insured with the ap pellant. 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. land 2. ; 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is right in his submission that the Insurance Company has get no right to question quantum of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant. A refer ence in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court in Ramesh. Chand v. Randhir Singh, AIR 1977 All. 330 , wherein relying upon the decision of Apex Court in AIR 1959 SC 1331 , it was ruled as under: "almost every other High Court has taken the view that the defence open to an Insurance Company in a claim under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles 4ct are restricted to those specified in Section 96 (2) of the Act, See Hukum Chand Insurance Co. Limited v. Subhashini Roy, 1971 ACC CJ 156 (Cal); Kesavan Nair v. State Insurance Officer, 1971 ACC CJ 219 (Ker); Orissa Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd. v. Bhagaban Suhu, 1971 ACC CJ 49 (Ori); Kasturi Lal v. Prabkakar, 1970 ACC CJ 1: AIR 1971 MP 146, Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rohini Bhan, 1970 ACC CJ 11 (Del); Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shafali Mukherji, 1970 ACC CJ 245 (All) (LB); Padma Devi v. Guntbaksh Singh, 1973 ACC CJ 460: AIR 1973 Raj 317 ; B. Appa Rao v. Dunna Mukanda Rao, 1973 ACC CJ 222 (Ori) and Northern Indian General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. L. Krishnan, 1972 ACC CJ 420: AIR 1973 Mys 107. (We accordingly find that it is hot permissible for the appellant in RA. F. O. No. 420 of 1975 to assail the findings of the Claim Tribunal on merits. It may, however, be added that as we shall show while con sidering the appeal by the truck owner even on merits there is no substance in this appeal ). 11. Similarly, in M/s. United India In surance Co. v. Shaikh Saibaqtulla and others, AIR 1992 AP 124 . It was ruled as under: "it is now well settled that an insurer can not take plea beyond the scope of Section 96 (2) of the Act: B. I. G. Insurance Co. v. Irbar Singfi, AIR 1959 SC 1331 , is an authority for this. It should be remembered that it is not open to the Insurance Company to question the quantum of compensation. R. Chinks Rao v. Reddi Lorudu, AIR 1980 AP 279, 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 com pensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants. 13. So far as the question of enhance ment 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 conse quence, as in appropriate cases, this Court can enhance amount of compensa tion even if the cross-appeal or objection is not filed. 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 conse quence, as in appropriate cases, this Court can enhance amount of compensa tion even if the cross-appeal or objection is not filed. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Shushma Thomas, AIR 1994 SC 1631 ; Shanti Bai and others v. Chanan Singh and others, JT 1998 (6) SC 81; Divisional Controller, K. S. R. T. C. Bangalore v. J. D. Sigamany and another, AIR 1998 Kar 274 ; Sajanbai and another v. Illias Mohammad and others, 1998 (2) TAG 118 (MP); Ram Kumar and others v. Shri Mahaveer and others, 1998 (2) TAG 115 (Raj) and Hanuman Sant and others v. Madan Lal and others, 1998 (2) TAC116 (Raj ). 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 XI class. Acci dent cut-short his life tenure, had he been alive, he would have made mark in his life and would have earned 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 compensa tion substantially. In the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Cor poration, Trivandrum (supra) amount of compensation claimed was Rs. 2,64,000. The Tribunal awarded only amount of Rs. 66,30q, same was enhanced by the appel late Court to Rs. 2,25,000. In Shantibai case (supra) the amount claimed as com pensation was Rs. 10,00,000. The Tribunal awarded only amount of Rs. 40,000, the same was enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 1,50,000. In Hanuman Sant case (supra) amount of compensation was Rs. 1,50,000. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 66,300, the said amount was enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 1,14,800. In Haji Zaminuuah Khan v. Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad, 1996 (2) TAC 338, a student of VIIIth standard was killed, the Supreme Court awarded amount of Rs. 1,50,000. 1,50,000. In Hanuman Sant case (supra) amount of compensation was Rs. 1,50,000. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 66,300, the said amount was enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 1,14,800. In Haji Zaminuuah Khan v. Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad, 1996 (2) TAC 338, a student of VIIIth standard was killed, the Supreme Court awarded amount of Rs. 1,50,000. In Nagar Mal v. Lal Chand, 1996 (2) TAC 338, a student of Xth class was killed in an accident and amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was awarded as compensation. Similarly, in Ram Kumar and others v. Mahavir and others (supra), 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. .