Judgment :- The appeal has been preferred against the award of Rs.3,50,000/- as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- by the transport corporation. 2. The case is a fatal accident case. The first respondent/claimant is the wife of the deceased and the respondents 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased and the respondents 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. 3. The case of the respondents 1 to 5/claimants are that one Sevugamoorthy was a building contractor died in an accident occurred on 20.02.2006. When he was riding a motor cycle, the appellants bus, which was coming in the opposite direction, was driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle and as a result of which, the deceased was thrown out and sustained injuries and succumbed to death. 4. The contention of the respondents 1 to 5 herein/claimants in M.C.O.P. are that the deceased was a building contractor earning about a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and because of his loss, they lost dependency and claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation along with 12% interest. 5. The appellant contested the claim by filing counter affidavit denying the negligence of the driver of the Corporation. 6. Before the Tribunal, four witnesses were examined on the side of the respondents/claimants and one witness was examined on the side of the appellant herein. Exs.P1 to P.9 were marked on the side of the respondents/claimants. (i) Ex.P1 - The certified copy of FIR. (ii)Ex.P2 – The certified copy of accident register. (iii)Ex.P3 - The certified copy of Postmortem certificate. (iv) Ex.P4 - The certified copy of rough sketch. (v) Ex.P5 - The certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. (vi)Ex.P6 - The certified copy of Final report. (vii)Exs.P7 to P9- The xerox copies of the agreement regarding building contractor. No document was marked on the side of the appellant/respondent. 7. After appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, the pleadings and the evidence adduced both documentary and oral, the Tribunal found that negligence of the appellants bus driver alone caused the accident and the transport corporation was held to be liable to pay the compensation. 8. As far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- finding that there was no evidence to the effect that the deceased was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month. 8. As far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- finding that there was no evidence to the effect that the deceased was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month. Relying upon Ex.P3, certified copy of the postmortem certificate, the age of the deceased was fixed at 37 years. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,20,000 towards loss of income, Rs.5000 for funeral expenses and at the rate of Rs.5000 each totally Rs.25,000/- towards consortium and loss of love and affection. All together, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 9. Mr.M.Prakash, the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the tribunal award contending that the quantum arrived at by the tribunal is on the higher side, as wrong multiplier contrary to the Honble Supreme Court judgment was applied. Relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2007 (1) TN MAC 319(SC) (M.D.TNSTC v. Sripriya & Ors), he contended that proper multiplier to be adopted in this case is 12. 10. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased was 37 years old and he was a driver of transport corporation bus and the tribunal applied the 16 multiplier and arrived at the compensation. However on appeal, the Honourable Supreme Court changed the multiplier and adopted 12. Hence the learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per the Supreme Court judgment relied on by him, in this case also multiplier 12 should be adopted. 11. The tribunal discussed the negligence in detail in paragraphs 6 to 15 and held that the claimants were able to prove through oral testimony of P.W.2 Paramasivam and P.W.3 Sivadhass, Ex.P1 to Ex.p6 that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, which resulted in the death of the deceased. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, supporting the judgment of the Tribunal, contended that as per Schedule appended to the motor vehicles Act, proper multiplier namely 16 was adopted taking into consideration the age of the deceased or the age of the widow which ever is higher. In this case, the age of the deceased was higher than the age of the widow which was 37. 13. There is no reason to deviate from the second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. In this case, the age of the deceased was higher than the age of the widow which was 37. 13. There is no reason to deviate from the second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. It is a guide to be followed by the Tribunal while arriving at the compensation to be given. As long as second schedule remains in the motor vehicle Act, in view of this Court, it has to be followed as a guide. The Honble Supreme Court in Abati Bezbaruah vs. Deputy Director General of Geological Survey of India reported in (2003) 3 SCC 148 held that second schedule should not be ordinarily deviated from. In the recent judgment in Rani Gupta vs. United India Insurance Company reported in (2009) 5 Scale 439 Supreme Court held that multiplier specified in the second schedule should be taken as guide line. Moreover, the provisions of giving compensation to the accident victims are beneficial in nature. The intention of the legislature is to give benefits to the victims. When such is the intention of the legislature it cannot be deviated. Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion proper multiplier 16 was rightly adopted by the Tribunal and the same does not warrant any interference. 14. Relying upon the Supreme Court Judgment reported in 2004 1 L.W. 1 (State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and ors.), the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in that case, an agriculturists income was fixed at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month by the tribunal and on appeal, the Honourable Supreme Court reduced the monthly income to Rs.3000/-. 15. On perusal of the judgment it was noted the accident occurred on 03.02.1999. The tribunal fixed the monthly income at the rate of Rs.4,500/-. The Honourable Supreme Court reduced the monthly income at Rs.3,500/- in 2003. In this case the accident occurred in 2006 and now, we are in 2009. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence available on record and also taking into consideration of cost of living and earning power as on date, it is proper and appropriate to fix the monthly income at the rate of Rs.3,000/-. 16. In this case the accident occurred in 2006 and now, we are in 2009. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence available on record and also taking into consideration of cost of living and earning power as on date, it is proper and appropriate to fix the monthly income at the rate of Rs.3,000/-. 16. However, the counsel for appellant opposed the said enhancement contending that this Court has got no jurisdiction to enhance the compensation in the appeal in the absence of any appeal/cross appeal by the respondents 1 to 6/claimants. 17. It is well settled law that appeal is continuation of the original proceedings and this Court in the appeal can re-appreciate facts and circumstances of the case and evidence and accordingly enhance/reduce the compensation. Under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC, this Court has got power and jurisdiction to pass appropriate order in the appeal. Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC is extracted hereunder. “Power of Court of Appeal: The appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court withstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees. Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under Section 35A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order.” 18. Even in the absence of appeal/cross appeal by the beneficiaries of the award, the Apex Court held that, compensation can be enhanced if the award is found to be inadequate. In Nagappa Vs. Gurdial Singh and Ors reported in 2003 (2) SCC 274 3 judges Bench of the Apex Court in para 21 held as follows; “21. Even in the absence of appeal/cross appeal by the beneficiaries of the award, the Apex Court held that, compensation can be enhanced if the award is found to be inadequate. In Nagappa Vs. Gurdial Singh and Ors reported in 2003 (2) SCC 274 3 judges Bench of the Apex Court in para 21 held as follows; “21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the M.V.Act, there is no restriction that the tribunal can not award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation which is reasonable on the basis of the evidence produced on record”. In State of Punjab vs Bakshish Singh reported in 1998 (8) SCC 222 , the Apex Court held that the appellate Court has got wide power to do complete justice between the parties and which enables the Court to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed or as the nature of the case may require notwithstanding that the party in whose favour the power is sought to be exercised has not filed any appeal or cross appeal. 19. This Court also enhanced compensation in T.N.S.T.C vs. Saroja reported in 2008 (1) TNMAC 352 in the absence of appeal by the beneficiaries. 20. This Court has to render justice taking into consideration the facts which are existing at the time of the accident as well as considering the present stage also. This Courts endeavor is to arrive at just compensation which should not be arbitrary or excessive. Taking into consideration of all facts and evidence, this Court enhances the monthly income from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/-. The Honourable Supreme Court also in a number of judgment has defined what is meant by just compensation. The ingredients for just compensation are fairness, reasonableness and non arbitrariness. Based on these factors only, this Court comes to the aforesaid conclusion and accordingly monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the loss of income is arrived at Rs.3,84,000/-. [Rs.3000 x 12= 36000 – 1/3rd] [24000 X 16 = Rs.3,84,000/-] 21. Based on these factors only, this Court comes to the aforesaid conclusion and accordingly monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the loss of income is arrived at Rs.3,84,000/-. [Rs.3000 x 12= 36000 – 1/3rd] [24000 X 16 = Rs.3,84,000/-] 21. On a perusal of the award would show that towards loss of consortium to the first respondent/claimant, towards loss of love and affection for the respondents 2 and 3 being the children and towards love and affection for respondents 4 and 5 being the parents, on the aforesaid headings only a sum of Rs.25,000/- was given, which in this Court view is very meager amount and it requires to be enhanced. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant opposed this, citing the judgment reported in 2006 (2) ACJ 700 (National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Geetha). 23. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that amount awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs.25,000/- for the respondents/claimants is reasonable that does not warrant any enhancement. 24. The first respondent widow lost her husband at the young age of 28 which is the prime consideration for awarding compensation towards consortium. The Award under the heading Consortium only be given to the widow and not for any body else. Considering the age of the first respondent/claimant a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium. It is very pity to note that a three month child who was not able to recognise even the face of the parents and lost the chance of seeing his fathers face throughout his life. The other child was aged about 3 years at the time of accident. Children require love and affection apart from the guidance in the life from the father. In Tamil, parents were praised in the following poem; TAMIL Both the child lost the aforesaid love, affection and guidance from the father throughout their life. Hence, it is proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000 each. As far as other respondents 5 and 6/claimants viz parents of the deceased are concerned, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-each towards loss of love and affection. Accordingly, in the aforesaid heading, the amount referred to above are awarded by this Court. 25. Hence, it is proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000 each. As far as other respondents 5 and 6/claimants viz parents of the deceased are concerned, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-each towards loss of love and affection. Accordingly, in the aforesaid heading, the amount referred to above are awarded by this Court. 25. Even though, no amount was awarded towards transportation, the counsel for the appellant, said it got merged with the funeral expenses that is the reason why the tribunal did not award any amount. Seeing the reasonableness in the argument, this Court feels that there is no necessity to award any amount separately towards transportation. Regarding loss of estate, no amount was claimed and awarded by the tribunal. 26. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no evidence available before the tribunal to award any amount regarding the loss of estate. The claimants did not claim any amount in that regard. Hence, the Tribunal rightly did not award any amount. 27. As far as the rate of interest 7.5% is concerned, this Court considers the said rate of interest is very reasonable and proper and it does not warrant any interference by this Court either reduction or enhance. In fine the award of the tribunal is modified as follows; TABLE Hence the award of Rs.3,50,000/- granted by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,54,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand only) in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. 28. The aforesaid award amount could be divided among the respondents/claimants, according to the ratio adopted by the Tribunal. 29. The learned counsel for the appellant requires six weeks time to deposit the amount before the Tribunal. Accordingly, six weeks time is granted and the time will run from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit of the amount by the appellant, the Tribunal is directed to pay the award amount to the claimants within two weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.