Judgment :- The appeal has been preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited against the award of Rs.7,13,227/-. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The deceased Kathiresan was travelling in his two-wheeler on 03.12.2000 and the same was hit by the lorry driven in rash and negligent manner resulting sustaining injuries by the deceased. He was hospitalised and during the course of the treatment he died. Hence, the claim petition was filed claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. It was resisted by the appellant insurance company. 3. On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry and awarded a sum of Rs.7,13,227/- in the following manner. Towards loss of income : Rs.5,40,000/- Towards loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000/- Towards loss of love and affection : Rs. 15,000/- Towards funeral expenses : Rs. 3,000/- Towards medical expenses : Rs.1,45,227/- Against the said award of Rs.7,13,227/- the present appeal has been preferred by the insurance company. 4. Mr.K.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance company submitted that the Insurance company is aggrieved with regard to the quantum alone and he therefore confines his argument regarding quantum. The learned counsel particularly pointed out that there was no documentary evidence available for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.3,000/-. When there was no concrete proof for monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-, the learned counsel further found fault with the Tribunals award in awarding Rs.1,500/-more towards future prospects. He referred paragraph 11 of the award in which the Tribunal itself observed that there was no documentary evidence to prove the employment of deceased. P.W.3 Satish Kumar who was examined on the side of the claimant stated that the deceased was earning about Rs.6,000/-per month in Leads company working as supervisor in the said company. However, the Tribunal noted that P.W.3 Satish Kumar who claimed to be working in the said Leads company did not file any document to show that he was working in the said company. Having observed so, the learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal should have rejected P.W.3s evidence for absence of any documentary proof to the effect that he was employed in Leads company. Having observed so, the learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal should have rejected P.W.3s evidence for absence of any documentary proof to the effect that he was employed in Leads company. Merely based on evidence of P.W.1 and unproved evidence of P.W.3, the Tribunal determined the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-which is contrary to the evidence. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that when the monthly income was not proved, the Tribunal ought not to have granted more amount towards future prospects. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks for reduction of amount granted towards loss of income. 5. On the other hand Mr.S.Swaminathan, learned counsel for R1 and R2/ claimants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and is based on evidence and does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the pleadings, evidence on record and the award, this Court, confirms the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the negligent aspect. The negligence has been discussed in paragraph 8 and 9 of the award and based on evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 eye witness and relying upon the judgment reported in (2003) ACJ page 475 and (2001) 2 LW page 292, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry and therefore the said finding of the tribunal is confirmed. 7. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was working in Leads company, aged about 44 years, and earning about Rs.6,000/-per month. It is seen that there was no documentary proof available before the Tribunal to prove the monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-, though P.W.1 and P.W.3 orally deposed that the deceased was earning about Rs.6,000/-. In the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal rightly rejected the salary of Rs.6,000/- per month alleged to be earned by the deceased. It is very difficult to believe the version of the claimant that the deceased was earning about Rs.6,000/- in the absence of any document. If a person was said to be earning Rs.6,000/-, there must be documents like salary slip, payment of salary through cheque, appointment order and other connected documents and therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected the said claim of the claimants. 8. If a person was said to be earning Rs.6,000/-, there must be documents like salary slip, payment of salary through cheque, appointment order and other connected documents and therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected the said claim of the claimants. 8. However, this Court has to see whether the Tribunal was right in determining the monthly salary of the deceased on Rs.3,000/-per month. Though several judgments have been referred to by the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the monthly salary of the deceased should be Rs.3,000/-, this Court relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Insurance Company Limited Versus Kalpana(Smt.) and others reported in (2007) 3 SCC 538 wherein it has been held in the absence of any concrete and definite evidence to prove the income of the deceased, the Supreme Court was pleased to fix the monthly contribution of the deceased after deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses at Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the said dictum of the Supreme Court is being followed and monthly contribution of the deceased is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. The tribunal determined the monthly salary at Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,500/- future income in all amounting to Rs.4,500/-and after deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses Rs.3,000/-was taken as monthly contribution by the Tribunal. The said determination by the tribunal is in consonance with the dictum laid by the Supreme Court in Kalpana case. Hence, this Court takes Rs.3,000/- as monthly contribution of the deceased to the family. 9. According to the claimant, the deceased was aged about 44 years and the same was proved by Ex.P2 Post-mortem report. The Tribunal rightly took 15 as multiplier for the age of 44 as per second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and rightly calculated the loss of income. The loss of income is calculated as follows: Rs.3,000/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.5,40,000/-Though this Court arrives at the amount in a different way based on Kalpanas case judgment, it is the same amount arrived by the Tribunal. 10. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. It is seen from the records that the first claimant lost her husband at the age of 38. The Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards consortium. 10. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. It is seen from the records that the first claimant lost her husband at the age of 38. The Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards consortium. The consortium can be awarded only to the wife and losing the husband at the age of 38 is very unfortunate as she would be losing love and affection, the care and affection of the husband and life companionship throughout her life. Therefore, this Court considers Rs.10,000/-as a very low amount and awards a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium. 11. Similarly, the second respondent son, who was aged about 18 years would be losing his fathers guidance and the love and affection which are essential for any child, lost it at the age of 18 and therefore, this Court awards a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards loss of love and affection to the second respondent. The amount awarded towards funeral is confirmed as the medical expenses is supported by Ex.P.6 series and the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,227/-. 12. It is seen from the records that no amount was awarded towards transportation and therefore, this Court grants a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards transportation. 13. In the result, the award of Rs.7,13,227/- is enhanced to Rs.7,40,727/-in the appeal filed by the Insurance company. The Tribunal awarded 9% interest per annum. The accident occurred in 2000. Taking into consideration the prevalent bank interest at that time, the Tribunal rightly awarded 9% interest and it is confirmed. However, for the enhanced amount, this Court fixes the interest at the rate of 7.5%. 14. It is a well settled law that even in the absence for appeal/ cross appeal, this Court has powers to enhance the amount under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial and benevolent Act to compensate the innocent victims of the road accident. This has been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in Nagappa versus Guru Dhayal Singh reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274 and National Insurance Company Limited versus Saradha and others reported in 2009 (1) TNMAC page 619 (SC) and Clara versus T.Harendranath reported in (2007) 1 MLJ 600 . Section 173 is the appeal provision where this Court can re-appreciate the pleadings and evidence and award just and fair compensation. Section 173 is the appeal provision where this Court can re-appreciate the pleadings and evidence and award just and fair compensation. Moreover it is a well settled fact that appeal is the continuation of original proceedings. 15. Even in the absence of the above provisions, this Court is empowered under article 227 of the Constitution of India to award compensation suo motu considering the beneficial and benevolent nature of the Motor Vehicles Act. What ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal as per the Motor Vehicles Act was not ordered. Therefore this Court can grant the same award which should have been awarded by the Tribunal. The Honble Supreme Court in Sahil(Smt.) Vs. Manoj Kumar and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 785 , stated that this Court has power and jurisdiction to pass such a decision or decisions as the inferior Court/ Tribunal should have made. When manifest injustice is done to the party this Court can invoke article 227 suo motu and render justice especially when dealing with the beneficial and benevolent Act, the Motor Vehicles Act. 16. The above appeal is disposed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.7,13,227/- to Rs.7,40,727/-. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off. There will be no orders as to costs. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent/ claimant submitted that the entire award amount as per the Tribunal award was deposited before the Tribunal and 60% was ordered to be withdrawn. Therefore, the Tribunal is directed to pay the balance deposited amount within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order. The appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Tribunal is directed to pay that amount within a period of two weeks thereof.