Judgment :- 1. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation, the Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation has presented this appeal before this Court on the ground of negligence and of quantum. 2. The claimants 1 to 11, the respondents herein filed a claim petition for the death of the deceased, the husband of the first claimant seeking for the compensation of Rs.2,00,000. But, the tribunal awarded only Rs.65,000. 3. The deceased in this case was a Railway employee working as a carpenter in the railway workshop. The first claimant is his wife and other 10 claimants are his children. 4. On 24.9.1991 at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased Subramani was walking along the road-Kizhukku Kulakkaraj Theru at Thiruvallur along with one Devanathan, his nephew, who was pushing the cycle with him in the road, since it was a steep road. At that time, the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation came in high speed and dashed against the deceased Subramani from behind. The deceased died on the spot. The said Devanathan, P.W.2 gave a complaint to the police. The F.I.R. is Ex.A-1. 5. Since it was due to the negligent driving of the bus driver, the claimants filed a petition seeking compensation. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 the first claimant and P.W.2, the eye-witness were examined. On their side, Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Corporation, R.W.1 the driver was examined. 6. According to the appellant-Corporation, the driver was not negligent. To this effect, a counter was filed. R.W.1, the driver would state that both the deceased and another person were riding on a cycle and when the bus coming on their back side was nearing them, the deceased, the pillion rider, who lost his balance fell on the road and met with the accident. 7. After enquiry, the tribunal found that the driver was negligent and awarded the compensation as indicated above. 8. Though the award was Rs.65,000 as against the compensation of Rs.2,00,000, there is no appeal preferred against inadequacy of the compensation. 9. However, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that he has already a cross-objection in this Court and SR. number was given, but now the papers are not available. 10. This appeal is presented by the appellant-Corporation before this Court, questioning the award on the ground of negligence. 11. 9. However, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that he has already a cross-objection in this Court and SR. number was given, but now the papers are not available. 10. This appeal is presented by the appellant-Corporation before this Court, questioning the award on the ground of negligence. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would submit that the evidence of R.W.1 was not at all considered and had it been considered, the tribunal would have found that the driver was not negligent and that the total calculated arrived at by the tribunal to pass an award of Rs.65,000 is not scientific and sustainable. 12. On the other hand, the counsel for the claimants, the respondents, would contend that this Court though not satisfied with the judgment of the tribunal would take into consideration the materials available on record by going through the original records and decide about the aspect of the negligence. He would also contend that though the cross-objection is not yet numbered, this Court has got powers to enhance the compensation, as laid down by the various rulings of this court and the Apex Court and so, the same can be enhanced, as there are materials to satisfy this Court to hold that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is not just and adequate. 13. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. 14. At the outset, I shall mention that the tribunal though has not considered the evidence of R.W.1 the driver of the bus, on referring the evidence of P.W.2, the eye-witness, concluded that the driver of the bus was negligent. As correctly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, the tribunal has failed in its duty in considering the evidence of R.W.1 and analysing the materials produced by both the parties for answering the question as to who is negligent. 15. Mere reference about the statement of P.W.2, the eye witness and the conclusion on the basis of the said statement may not reflect the judicial application of mind. However, this Court having appellate jurisdiction would go into the materials placed by the parties over the aspect of negligence, if there is no proper consideration by the tribunal regarding the same. 16. However, this Court having appellate jurisdiction would go into the materials placed by the parties over the aspect of negligence, if there is no proper consideration by the tribunal regarding the same. 16. According to the first claimant, as stated in the claim petition, on 30.9.1991 at about 3.00 p.m., the bus bearing registration No.TCB.3347 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against her husband who died on the spot. P.W.2 the eye witness would state before the court that he and his uncle, the deceased crossed the bridge in Kizhukku Kulakkaraj Theru at Thiruvallur by pushing the cycle on the road and at that time, the bus TCB.3347 came behind with speed and dashed against the deceased. 17. According to R.W.1, while he was driving the bus, he saw both the witness and the deceased riding on the cycle as doubles and when he heard the sound, he turned back and saw the deceased lying down near the foot-board. Ex.A-1 is the F.I.R. The complaint has been immediately lodged with the police, who in turn registered the case against the driver of the bus, R.W.1. The contents of the F.I.R. would clearly corroborate the evidence let in by P.W.2. 18. However, in the counter filed by the appellant-Corporation, a slightly different story has been projected. It is stated in the counter that while the bus was nearing Kamaraj statue near Thiruvallur bus stand, the driver saw a cycle proceeding with a pillion rider in front of the bus, that the road was steep and that when the cycle was proceeding upward on the road and the bus was nearing the cyclist, the cyclist lost his balance and dashed at the left back foot-board and the pillion rider sustained injuries due to that. 19. In the light of the inconsistent stand taken by the appellant Corporation, the evidence given by P.W.2, which is supported by Ex.A-1, the F.I.R. assumes significance. 20. Moreover, the incident had taken place in day light. Admittedly, the deceased along with another were riding on the cycle or pushing the cycle in front of the bus and the road was a steep one and there was a narrow bridge. So, the driver of the bus must have given sufficient space for the cyclist to go on the left side. 21. Admittedly, the deceased along with another were riding on the cycle or pushing the cycle in front of the bus and the road was a steep one and there was a narrow bridge. So, the driver of the bus must have given sufficient space for the cyclist to go on the left side. 21. According to P.W.2, as stated in the F.I.R. the bus came behind him and dashed against the deceased. Under these circumstances, it can be certainly concluded that the claimants have clearly established the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus alone, in the light of the materials available on record. 22. Now, let us go into the aspect of the quantum. 23. The learned counsel for the respondents, as stated earlier, would contend that he already filed cross-objection and he would be able to give the S.R. number, but the said papers are not traceable. However, he would make further submission that even in the absence of cross-objection, this Court has got powers to enhance the quantum of compensation. Under O.41, Rule 33, C.P.C. 24. However, the learned counsel for the appellant would cite the decision in Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Marudhammal and 6 others Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Marudhammal and 6 others Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Marudhammal and 6 others , (1999)3 L.W. 112 and contend that the respondents in this appeal cannot challenge the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation in the appeal preferred by the appellant-Corporation without filing a cross-objection. 25. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents, in order to substantiate his plea regarding the powers of this Court to enhance the amount of compensation in the absence of cross-objection, would cite the authorities given below: (1) Managing Director (Metro), Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited v. Kalavathy Managing Director (Metro), Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited v. Kalavathy Managing Director (Metro), Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited v. Kalavathy, 1998 A.C.J. 151. (2) Surjit Singh v. Waryam Singh, 1994 A.C.J. 505. (3) Dhangir v. Madan Mohan, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 54. 26. In the judgment cited by the counsel for the appellant, Hon’ble S.M.Abdul Wahab, J., while interpreting O.41, Rule 22 of C.P.C., would observe that in the appeal, the respondent cannot attack the decree and if he is really aggrieved by the decree, he has to file a cross-objection. (3) Dhangir v. Madan Mohan, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 54. 26. In the judgment cited by the counsel for the appellant, Hon’ble S.M.Abdul Wahab, J., while interpreting O.41, Rule 22 of C.P.C., would observe that in the appeal, the respondent cannot attack the decree and if he is really aggrieved by the decree, he has to file a cross-objection. But, O.41, Rule 33 has not been discussed in detail in the said judgment. 27. Though the case of Dhangir is referred to in the said judgment, the same has bene distinguished by the learned Judge facts. This authority cannot be taken to say that the ratio has been decided, in the light of the O.41, Rule 33, C.P.C. Therefore, this decision does not help the appellant. 28. On the other hand, the decisions cited by the counsel for the respondents give a clear answer to the point stating that this court has got powers even in the absence of cross-objection. 29. In 1988 A.C.J. 151, this Court would observe as follows: “There is no dispute over the proposition of law canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to the effect that the tribunal and appellate court are entitled to award just compensation even if it is more than what has been claimed by the claimant if the evidence establishes payment of higher sum and the respondents in appeal are entitled to challenge the order of the court below against which the appeal has been preferred even without cross-objection.“ 30. In 1994 A.C.J. 505, a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh would hold thus: ”When the Act nowhere enjoins upon the claimant to specify the amount of compensation, the procedure prescribed also does not prevent a claims tribunal in limiting the award to a limit up to which it is claimed by a claimant, but enjoys upon the tribunal to assess the just amount of compensation, it follows that the tribunal is not powerless in making an award even in excess of the amount of compensation claimed. Claim for compensation is also not made dependent upon the amount of court fee payable, since it is a fixed amount of court fee of Rs.10, which is payable on every claim petition. Claim for compensation is also not made dependent upon the amount of court fee payable, since it is a fixed amount of court fee of Rs.10, which is payable on every claim petition. Otherwise also, in facts and circumstances of the instant case, where injuries to the claimant are of such a nature, extent or impact of which could not have been visualised on the date of filing of the claims petition, the same would not prevent the court from assessing the compensation, which appears to be just.“ 31. In A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 54, the Apex Court would observe as follows: ”The words “as the case may require” used in Rule 33 of O.41 have been put in wide terms to enable the appellate court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of justice. What then should be the constraint. We do not find many. We are not giving any liberal interpretation. The rule itself is liberal enough. the only constraints that we could see may be these: That the parties before the lower court should be there before the appellate court. The question raised must be properly arise out of judgment of the lower court. If these two requirements are there, the appellate court could consider any objection against any part of the judgment or decree of the lower court. It may be urged by any party to the appeal. It is true that the power of the appellate court under Rule 33 is discretionary. But it is a proper exercise of judicial discretion to determine all questions urged in order to render complete justice between the parties. The court should not refuse to exercise that discretion on mere technicalities.“ 32. The observations made in the above decisions would clearly show that this Court has got powers even in the absence of cross-objection to find out whether the compensation awarded is just or not. If it finds that the same is not just, it would certainly modify the award suitably in order to render justice to the parties. 33. The courts should not be silent spectators, when they feel that the tribunal had not done proper justice in awarding the relief to the claimants. If it finds that the same is not just, it would certainly modify the award suitably in order to render justice to the parties. 33. The courts should not be silent spectators, when they feel that the tribunal had not done proper justice in awarding the relief to the claimants. As pointed out by various rulings, the underlying purport and design of the provisions of O.41, Rule 33 would clearly go to show that the Parliament has enacted such a provision with a view that the court could rise to the occasion and render substantial justice between the parties even in the absence of cross-objection. 34. In the light of the well laid principles enunciated by the various courts and the Apex Court, let us now go into the question whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and adequate. 35. The tribunal has simply fixed Rs.2,337 as monthly income and by adopting 3 as multiplier, it calculated the total income as Rs.84,132. After deducting 1/4 towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the tribunal awarded Rs.65,000 as a round figure. 36. As mentioned earlier, there is no reference about other heads, though various amounts have been claimed by the claimants on various heads. According to the claimants, there are 11 dependants including P.W.1, claimants 2 to 11 are her children. 37. P.W.1 in her evidence would state that her husband used to get Rs.2,800 as monthly salary, who was working as a carpenter in the railway workshop. Ex.A-3, the heir certificate would show the following particulars: Sl.No. Name Relationship Age (1) Tmt.Kasthuri wife 47 (2) Thiru. Jaisankar son 23 (3) Thiru. Ravichandran son 21 (4) Selvi. Shanthi daughter 18 (5) Thiru. Lakshmanan son 15 (6) Thiru. Raman son 15 (7) Thiru. Krishnamurthy son 14 (8) Selvi. Mahalakshmi daughter 12 (9) Selvan. Raja son 10 (10) Selvan. Palani son 7 (11) Selvi. Tamilselvi daughter 6 Ex.A-5 is the salary certificate. According to this document, the total salary is Rs.2,851 and the net amount payable is Rs.2,337. 38. No doubt, it is true that there is no evidence as to what was the exact amount that was spent for the family expenses. But, even then, it can be taken that Rs.1,500 per month would have been spent for the family and the balance amount would have been spent for the personal expenses of the deceased. 39. 38. No doubt, it is true that there is no evidence as to what was the exact amount that was spent for the family expenses. But, even then, it can be taken that Rs.1,500 per month would have been spent for the family and the balance amount would have been spent for the personal expenses of the deceased. 39. The multiplier adopted in the instant case by the Tribunal is 3. This is quite wrong, in view of the decision in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra , 1996 A.C.J. 831. According to the Supreme Court, the multiplier varies from 5 to 15 depending upon the age of the deceased. The age fixed in the instant case is 55. For the persons above 55 years and exceeding 60 years as per he second schedule the multiplier of 8 years has to be adopted. If Rs.1,500 is taken as monthly dependency and multiplier of 8 is adopted, the total amount comes to Rs.1500 × 12 × 8 = Rs.1,44,000. 40. As indicated earlier, no amounts were provided for the other heads. The first claimant was aged about 47 years. So, it would be appropriate to add Rs.10,000 towards loss of consortium. It is seen from the evidence that out of 10 children, 7 were minors. Therefore, adding Rs.25,000 towards loss of love and affection for all the children would be proper. If these amounts are added along with the amount for loss of dependency, the total compensation would come to Rs.1,79,000 and it can be made as a round figure a Rs.1,80,000. 41. In the net result, the amount awarded by the tribunal, while confirming the finding with regard to negligence, is modified in regard to quantum by enhancing the amount of compensation in the following manner: (1) For loss of dependency : Rs.1,44,000 (2) For loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000 (3) For loss of love and affection: Rs. 25,000 -------------- Total: Rs.1,79,000 Rounded as : Rs.1,80,000 -------------- 42. 10,000 (3) For loss of love and affection: Rs. 25,000 -------------- Total: Rs.1,79,000 Rounded as : Rs.1,80,000 -------------- 42. Though the tribunal directed the Corporation to pay the compensation with interest at the rate of 15 per cent, in view of the enhancement made above, it would be appropriate to direct the appellant to pay the amount of compensation mentioned above with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The claimants are directed to pay the balance court-fee in respect of the quantum enhanced. 43. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.