Judgment : The appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of Rs.6,12,000/- to the respondents 1 to 3/claimants as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-. This is a fatal case in which one Mr. Rajaram met with an accident on 27. 2003 while he was riding his motor cycle proceeding from extreme left side of Trichy-Chennai bye pass road at Senthanirpuram over bridge towards south to north direction was hit by a bus belonging to the fourth respondent driven in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact of the accident, the victim fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries and taken to KMC Hospital at Tiruchirappalli and referred to Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli where he died. 2. According to the respondents 1 to 3/claimants, the deceased was working as Assistant Seed Officer in the Agriculture Department and was earning Rs.13,000/- per month along with other allowances. The claim petition was contested by the appellant stating that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the fourth respondent. 3. The Tribunal on appreciating the pleadings and evidence found that the driver of the bus alone was responsible for the accident and he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. To arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon Exhibit P-1, F.I.R and Exhibit P-5 copy of the judgment in which the driver of the bus was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Tiruchirappalli in C.C.No.387 of 2003 and the same was marked as Exhibit P-3. The finding regarding negligence was not seriously challenged by the appellant. In any event, the finding in this regard by the Tribunal is based on evidence and cannot be disturbed. 4. Regarding the quantum, the Tribunal relied upon Exhibit P-5, Salary Certificate of the deceased in which it was shown that the deceased was drawing about Rs.12,352/- per month and his take home salary was Rs.6,200/-. Hence, the Tribunal fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- and considering the age of the deceased, namely 53 years, multiplier ‘11’ was adopted and a sum of Rs.5,72,000/- was arrived towards loss of income. 5. Hence, the Tribunal fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- and considering the age of the deceased, namely 53 years, multiplier ‘11’ was adopted and a sum of Rs.5,72,000/- was arrived towards loss of income. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier ‘11’, as the deceased had only five years left in the service and in that event, multiplier ‘5’ alone should be adopted for arriving loss of income. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants contended that the Tribunal adopted right multiplier. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the multiplier ‘5’ is adopted taking into consideration of the rest of the service of the deceased 50% of his taken out salary should be taken into consideration and the remaining multiplier ‘6’ should be adopted based on the judgment in Rajendra Kumar and Others v. Rambhai and Others 2004 (2) TNMAC 372 (SC). 6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 53 years at the time of accident and he had only five years period left in the service. Hence, the correct multiplier to be adopted is ‘5’ and not ‘11’’ as adopted by the Tribunal. Regarding the salary, the Tribunal though relied upon Exhibit P-5 and found the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.12,352/-, it took Rs.6,200/- as take home salary and fixed the monthly income as Rs.6,500/-. It is patently wrong, when the deceased was earning about Rs.12,352/- that amount should have been Rs.8,238/- after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. The perks and other amounts cannot be deducted and (sic) the income-tax applicable to the salary alone could be deducted. With regard to the deduction of income-tax, the Supreme Court has held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and Others (2008) 2 SCC 763 that income-tax has to be deducted. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased should be fixed at Rs.12,352/-. Accordingly, loss of income for five years should be calculated as follows: 12352 X 5 X 12 X 2/3 – 10% = Rs.4,44,600/ Therefore, Rs.4,44,600/-is awarded towards loss of income during pre-retirement. 7. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased should be fixed at Rs.12,352/-. Accordingly, loss of income for five years should be calculated as follows: 12352 X 5 X 12 X 2/3 – 10% = Rs.4,44,600/ Therefore, Rs.4,44,600/-is awarded towards loss of income during pre-retirement. 7. Regarding the post retirement income, 50% of the salary has to be taken into consideration and the rest of the multiplier ‘6’ (i.e.,) out of multiplier ‘11’ which is applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 53 years has to be applied and the loss of income should be calculated as follows: 12353/2 = 6176.5 X 1/3 X 6 X 12 = Rs.2,96,433.52/- Therefore, the loss of income after service is arrived at Rs.2,96,433.52/-. The total loss of income would be: 4,44,600 + 2,96,433.52 = Rs.7,41,033.52/- 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the absence of any appeal/cross appeal by the claimants, the award passed by the Tribunal cannot be enhanced. In support of his submission, he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. R. Swaminathan and Others II (2006) ACC701 (SC) wherein it was held that when the claimant did not file an appeal against the award of the Tribunal or file any cross objection, there cannot be any enhancement in the appeal filed by the insurance company. He also contended that this Court has got no jurisdiction to enhance the award amount as the respondents/claimants are not aggrieved and therefore, this Court cannot enhance it. It is to be seen that an appeal is the continuation of original proceedings and this Court has got jurisdiction and powers, under Order 41 Rule 33 read with 151 of the C.P.C. and under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act to re-appreciate the facts and arrive at a compensation. 9. A number of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court held that this Court has got jurisdiction to enhance the amount even in the absence of appeal by claimants. This has been held by the Supreme Court in TNSTC v. Saroja 2008 (1) TNMAG 352, Nagappa v. Gurdayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 (III Judges Bench) in which the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, compensation could be enhanced in the absence of appeal. This has been held by the Supreme Court in TNSTC v. Saroja 2008 (1) TNMAG 352, Nagappa v. Gurdayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 (III Judges Bench) in which the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, compensation could be enhanced in the absence of appeal. What should be the criteria is just compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence on record. Moreover, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial in nature and they cannot be viewed narrowly. In any event, the case on hand is decided only based on the appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence on record. In view of that, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this Court has got no jurisdiction to enhance the award amount in the appeal filed by the insurance company, has to be rejected. 10. As far as the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other headings namely, Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium to the first respondent/first claimant and Rs.15,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses are hereby confirmed. 11. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.6,12,000/- to Rs.7,81,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% as follows: For Loss of income Rs.4,44,600/- For Loss of income after service Rs.2,96,433.52 For Loss of Consortium Rs.20,000/- For Loss of love and affection Rs.15,000/- For funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.7,81,033.52 12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of enhancing the award from Rs.6,12,000/- to Rs.7,81,033/-in the appeal filed by the insurance company. The respondents/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.7,81,033/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% as awarded by the Tribunal which will carry interest from the date of petition till realization. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.