Judgment :- The appellant-Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award directing it to pay the compensation of Rs. 77,000/- to the respondents-claimants, has filed this appeal. 2. According to the claimants, respondents herein, the deceased S.B. Ravikumar, husband of the first claimant, who was doing the labour contract in building and centering work, on 4-1-1989 at about 7 a.m., was proceeding in cycle from Chengalpattu towards Tambaram and while so, the bus belonged to the appellant-Corporation came behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, which resulted in his death in the hospital. 3. Though the claim petition was filed seeking for the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the Tribunal, after considering the materials placed by the parties, concluded that the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 77,000/- as compensation i.e., towards loss of income Rs. 72,000/- and towards loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/-. 4. Mainly on the ground of negligence, the present appeal has been filed before this Court with the grievance that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence of RW.1, the driver of the bus belonged to the appellant-Corporation, who had stated that only due to the negligence of the deceased, the accident had occurred. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the evidence of PW.2, the eye witness, would clearly reveal that the bus driver was negligent, as correctly found by the Tribunal. 6. On going through the materials in preference to the evidence of RW.1, the evidence of PW.2, the eye witness, can be considered to be trustworthy and genuine. Moreover, in the instant case, though the FIR has been filed by the driver of the bus, putting blame on the deceased, stating that he alone was negligent, the Police investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the bus stating that he was negligent. However, it shall be stated, as Ex. Rl would show, that ultimately the Criminal Court acquitted RW. 1 in respect of the charge under Section 304 (A) IPC. Neither, the fact of filing the charge-sheet in Section 304 (A) IPC nor the fact of Criminal Court acquitting the driver in respect of the said charge, would, in my view, have any bearing with reference to the question that has been raised in this case, as to fixing to negligence and the quantum of the compensation. Neither, the fact of filing the charge-sheet in Section 304 (A) IPC nor the fact of Criminal Court acquitting the driver in respect of the said charge, would, in my view, have any bearing with reference to the question that has been raised in this case, as to fixing to negligence and the quantum of the compensation. 7. Though it is stated that the accident took place at junction, the evidence of PW.2 would make it clear that the deceased was riding his cycle along with others hundred feet away from junction and was going in the extreme left side of the road and at that point of time, the bus driver came with high speed in the same direction and hit against the cycle from behind. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention urged by the counsel for the appellant with reference to the aspect of negligence. 8. In regard to the quantum, though it is not seriously challenged by the counsel for appellant, the perusal of the judgment would make it clear that the multiplier of 20 has been adopted on the basis of longevity theory, which may not be proper on the basis of Apex Court ruling. However, in my view, the total amount of compensation of Rs. 77,000/- cannot be exorbitant in the facts and circumstances of the case. At this stage, Mr. K.S. Raman, learned counsel appearing for respondents would contend that the calculation, on the basis of the monthly dependency of Rs. 300/-, made by the Tribunal was not on the basis of any materials available on record and on the other hand, there are materials available through the evidence of PW.1, the wife of the deceased, that her husband was earning about Rs. 2,000/-per month in his job of centering work and if that be so, the award of compensation has to be enhanced in the light of those materials by invoking the powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of C.P.C. 9. Mr. G. Munirathnam, learned counsel for the appellant, would vehemently object to this by stating that when the claimants have chosen not to file a Cross-objection, it may not be proper on the part of the counsel appearing for the respondent to seek for the enhanced compensation. Mr. G. Munirathnam, learned counsel for the appellant, would vehemently object to this by stating that when the claimants have chosen not to file a Cross-objection, it may not be proper on the part of the counsel appearing for the respondent to seek for the enhanced compensation. However, he does not dispute the power of this Court in regard to the enhancement of the compensation if the Court finds that the amount of compensation is not just and adequate. 10. In my considered opinion, it cannot be contended that the calculation made by the Tribunal with reference to the income and the computation on the basis of the monthly dependency of Rs. 300/- is not correct. In this case, the Tribunal has to take into account various circumstances. Therefore, I am not able to accept the contention of the counsel for the respondents requesting this Court to enhance the amount of compensation towards the head “loss of income”. But, however, it is noticed that the Tribunal has not provided any amount towards the loss of love and affection to the children and loss of companionship for the mother, who is the fifth claimant. Therefore, in my view, in addition to Rs. 77,000/-, it would be proper to add Rs. 3,000/- more and make it around figure of Rs. 80,000/- 11. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, CMP. 18178/94 is also dismissed.