Judgment :- Factual Matrix: 2. The case of the respondent/claimant before the Tribunal was that 20 year old, T.V. mechanic who was earning about Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand only) per month, met with an accident on 211. 2004 and died on the spot. The deceased travelled as a pillion rider in TVS Centra, driven by a rider namely Sudakar and the bus belonged to the appellant Transport Corporation was coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against TVS Centra motor cycle. The deceased, Deenathayanithi, fell down on the road and the right back wheel of the bus run over the head of the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. The monthly income of the deceased was claimed as Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand only). The appellant Corporation filed a detailed counter statement denying the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and contended that because of the rash and negligent riding of the two wheeler, the accident occurred. Tribunal Proceedings: 3. Two witness were examined on the side of the petitioner and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked on the side of the claimants and no document was marked on the side of the appellant. 4. On appreciation of the facts and evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the appellants driver and reasons were in paragraph 7 of the award. 5. The Tribunal arrived at the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/-(Rupees two thousand and one hundred only) and deducted one-third amount towards his personal expenses and adopted multiplier "16" taking into consideration the age of the deceased namely 20. The loss of income was arrived at Rs.2,68,800/-(Rupees two lakhs sixty eight thousand and eight hundred only) and including of other amounts, totally a sum of Rs.2,80,800/-(Rupees two lakhs eighty thousand and eight hundred only) was awarded. Against the said award only, the above appeal has been preferred by the Transport Corporation. .6. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent. Contention of the Appellant: .7. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by the appellants driver was not based on the evidence and the conclusion reached in this regard is perverse and is not supported by any evidence. Contention of the Appellant: .7. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by the appellants driver was not based on the evidence and the conclusion reached in this regard is perverse and is not supported by any evidence. In support of that he relied upon the evidence of R.W.1 and also judgment passed in (Ex.P.6)C.C.No.264 of 2005 by Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, in which the driver of the appellant Corporation was acquitted from the charges of rash and negligent driving. Based on Ex.P.6, the learned Counsel stressed the point that when the Criminal Court acquitted the appellants driver, there is no question of going into the question again by the Tribunal and fixing the liability on the Corporation driver is erroneous. .8. Secondly, he found fault with compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of at Rs.2,100/-(Rupees two thousand and one hundred only) in the absence of any evidence in this regard. Contention of the Respondent: 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent supported the award. He contended that in spite of the acquittal by the Criminal Court, the Tribunal independently came to the conclusion that the driver of the appellant Corporation was only responsible for the accident and that was discussed in detail in paragraph 7 of the award. 10. Regarding the quantum, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that very meagre amount was given and is required to be enhanced by this Court, even in the absence of appeal by the beneficiaries. .11. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent. Negligence and Liability: .12. No doubt, Ex.P.6 judgment, proved that the charges made against the appellant Corporation driver were not proved against him and hence, he was acquitted from the charges by virtue of the judgment(Ex.P.6) passed in C.C.No.264 of 2005. It is to be seen that the driver was not absolved/discharged from the charges. There is a clear distinction between absolving the offences and acquittal. Since the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the driver, he was acquitted and not absolved of the charges. If the driver was absolved of the offences, the contention of the appellant that the driver was not responsible for the accident, could be sustained. There is a clear distinction between absolving the offences and acquittal. Since the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the driver, he was acquitted and not absolved of the charges. If the driver was absolved of the offences, the contention of the appellant that the driver was not responsible for the accident, could be sustained. Whereas in this case, the driver of the Corporation was acquitted. Apart from that, the findings of the criminal Courts are not binding on the civil Court. Though the finding with regard to the accident by the Criminal Court is important, the same cannot be adopted as an yardstick to decide the negligence of the driver before the Tribunal. It is settled law that the criminal Court orders would not bind on the civil Court. Hence, the Tribunal rightly did not base its findings based on the criminal Court order. .13. Apart from that, the Tribunal independently came to the conclusion that because of the negligence of the driver of the Transport Corporation alone was responsible for the accident based in the evidence on record. In paragraph 7 of the award it was observed as follows: .“TAMIL” .14. The Tribunal also gave reasons for not believing the evidence of R.W.2 in paragraph 7 of the award. Apart from that, the Tribunal took into consideration of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.6, to reach the above conclusion. Hence, the findings given by the Tribunal that the driver of the Transport Corporation alone was responsible for the accident, cannot be found fault with and the same is sustained. .Quantum: .15. Though the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand only) towards monthly income of the deceased, no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal in this regard. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of Rs.2,100/-(Rupees two thousand and one hundred only). Even as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the notional monthly income is Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand and five hundred only). The Second Schedule was appended to the Motor Vehicles Act with effect from 111. 1994, and the accident occurred on 211. 2004, that is ten years after the introduction of the Second Schedule. Even the Honourable Supreme Court fixed the monthly income of a Coolie at Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only). The Second Schedule was appended to the Motor Vehicles Act with effect from 111. 1994, and the accident occurred on 211. 2004, that is ten years after the introduction of the Second Schedule. Even the Honourable Supreme Court fixed the monthly income of a Coolie at Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only). When that is a position, the T.V. mechanics monthly income cannot be fixed at Rs.2,100/-(Rupees two thousand and one hundred only) which is palpably very low. 16. It has been decided in a number of Honourable Supreme Court Judgments which includes 3 Judges Bench in Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh reported in (2003)2 SCC 274 that this Court has jurisdiction and powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code to enhance the amount even in the absence of appeal/cross appeal by the claimants/beneficiaries. Since the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is palpably very low which shocks the conscious of this Court, the monthly income has been enhanced and as a result, the award amount is also enhanced. .17. The Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kalpana (Smt) and Others reported in (2007)3 SCC 538 fixed monthly income at Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) (after deduction) of the taxi driver, in the absence of any definite material about the income. Hence, this Court arrives the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only). After deducting one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly contribution to the family would be Rs.2,000/-p.m.(Rupees two thousand only) and Rs.24,000/-p.a.(Rupees twenty four thousand only). The age of the deceased was 20, and the age of the first respondent/claimant at the time of filing petition was 30. Hence, the Tribunal rightly applied multiplier 16 to arrive the loss of income. If multiplier 16 is applied, the loss of income would be 2000X12X16=Rs.3,84,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and eighty four thousand only). Conclusion: 18. Accordingly, this Court arrives the loss of income at Rs.3,84,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs eight four thousand only). The Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards love and affection and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) towards ceremony charges and the same is confirmed. 19. The respondents are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,96,000/-(Rupees three lakhs and ninety six thousand only). The Tribunal awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5% and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards love and affection and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) towards ceremony charges and the same is confirmed. 19. The respondents are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,96,000/-(Rupees three lakhs and ninety six thousand only). The Tribunal awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5% and the same is confirmed. The award of the Tribunal is modified as follows: (i) Loss of income Rs.3,84,000.00 (ii)Love and affection Rs. 10,000.00 (iii) charges Rs. 2,000.00 Rs.3,96,000.00 The award of Rs.2,80,800/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty thousand and eight hundred only) is enhanced to Rs.3,96,000/-(Rupees three lakhs ninety six thousand only) even in the absence of the appeal by the claimants. 20. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to pay the entire award amount to the claimants within ten days thereof. 21. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of and connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.