Judgment :- 1. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein. 2. The award of Rs. 80,000/- payable to the respondents for the death of the deceased, the husband of the first claimant, is challenged in this appeal by the appellant herein mainly on the ground of negligence. On 14.4.1991 at about 2.45 P.M., while the deceased Anbunathan was walking along with P.W. 2 Velayutham on the road, a bus belonging to the appellant Corporation coming from Virudhachalam to Salem Main Road, hit against the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and caused his instantaneous death. He was working as a Mason. The dependents are wife, parents and two daughters. They filed the claim petition seeking for the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 3. This claim was contested by the appellant-corporation by examining the driver of the bus, as R.W.I stating that the deceased was coming in a cycle, when the bus was going on the road and he suddenly lost the balance and fell down in front of the vehicle and as such, the driver was not negligent. 4. The Tribunal on considering the evidence of P.W. 1 - the wife of the deceased and P.W. 2. Velayutham - eye witness through whom Exs.A1 to A3 were marked and R.W. 1, the driver of the bus and Ex.Rl marked on the side of the appellant-Corporation, concluded that the driver of the bus was negligent and the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 80,000/- as against the total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- claimed. 5. Mr. G. Muniratnam, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Chinnaswamy, the learned counsel for the respondent were heard. I have also gone through the records. 6. In order to prove that the driver was negligent, on behalf of the claimants P.W. 2 was examined. Immediately after the accident, he had given a complaint against the bus driver which was registered in Crime No. 245/1991 by the Virudhachalam police. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.A1. 7. A perusal of the deposition of P.W. 2 and contents of Ex.A1 F.I.R. would disclose that when the deceased was walking along the road in the mud portion, the driver of the bus came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and fell down on the ground and died on the spot. 8. It is also noticed from the evidence of P.W. 2 that the bus driver stopped the bus at a considerable distance and thereafter, without giving any first aid to the victim he left the place by starting the bus. 9. It is the case of R.W. 1 that the deceased when he was coming in a cycle, lost his control and fell down in front of the bus. But there is no material available to support the case of R.W. 1 in support of his deposition. On the other hand, the case was investigated on the F.I.R. by the police who filed a charge sheet against the bus driver. 10. It is no doubt true that Ex.Rl would show that the said case ended in acquittal. As correctly pointed out by the Tribunal, mere acquittal in the criminal case could not be a bar to decide about the negligence on the part of the driver on the basis of the materials placed before the Tribunal. 11. In the light of the above materials and in view of the reasonings given by the Tribunal for concluding that the driver was negligent, I have no hesitation to hold that the finding that driver of the bus was negligent is perfectly correct and valid. 12. In regard to the quantum, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 35 years and concluded that the monthly income was Rs. 400/-. On that basis, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 80,000/- 13. There are no other details given in the judgment as to how such a figure has been arrived at. If multiplier theory is adopted in the light of the fact that the deceased was 35 years old at the time of accident, then 16 Would be the proper multiplier. If Rs. 400/- is fixed as monthly contribution, the total amount of loss of dependency would come to Rs. 76,800/-. But, there is no amount provided by the Tribunal for other heads, such as loss of consortium to the wife, loss of companionship to the parents and loss of love and affection to the children. 14. Unfortunately, in the instant case there is no cross-objection filed by the claimants herein. 76,800/-. But, there is no amount provided by the Tribunal for other heads, such as loss of consortium to the wife, loss of companionship to the parents and loss of love and affection to the children. 14. Unfortunately, in the instant case there is no cross-objection filed by the claimants herein. But, it does not prevent this court from exercising its powers under Order 41, Rule 33 C.P.C. to enhance the amount, if this court finds that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not justified. 15. Mr. G. Muniratnam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that in the absence of any cross-objection, this court cannot enhance the amount. 16. I am not able to countenance the said objection, since there must be proper assessment and apportionment of the amount to the claimants, Who are five in number. The age of the claimants at the time of the accident was, wife-30 years, father-60 years, mother-55 years, minor children - 11 years and 9 years respectively. Therefore in addition to the amount of Rs. 76,800/- it would be proper to add some more amount on other heads. 17. In view of the above discussion, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified on the following terms 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs. 76,800.00 2. Towards loss of consortium Rs. 10,000.00 3. Towards loss of companionship Rs. 5,000.00 4. Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 6,000.00 Total = Rs. 97,800.00 rounded to: Rs. 98.000.00 18. Therefore the appellant-Corporation is directed to pay the said amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In respect of the enhanced amount, the respondents are directed to pay the Court fee. 19. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.