JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. - The judgment and award dated 9.4.2001 passed by the M.A.C.T., Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in M.J.C. No.68/97 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,78,6571- fastening the liability upon the insurance company is under challenge by the appellant in this appeal on the basis of the permission obtained under Section 170 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, urging the following grounds. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal against the claim of medical expenses at Rs. 89,534/- and lodging expenses at Rs. 1,08,657/-, is on the higher side. It has mechanically accepted the case pleaded on the evidence adduced by the claimant and awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of left eye even though its has recorded a finding that there is no permanent loss of the eye but there is some defect and it cannot be said that one eye was totally disfigured. Having recorded such a finding, award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is on the higher side. It is further contended that the compensation awarded towards loss of mental agony and also disfigurement at Rs. 10,000/- each, is also on the higher side. Therefore, it is pleaded that the impugned award is illegal having been passed without any basis and the same is liable to be reduced. 2. The liability fastened upon the insurance company is bad in law for the reason that the driver, who was driving the offending vehicle and committed the accident, had no valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the right to recover from the insured the amount payable to the claimants, should have been reserved for the insurance company. That having not been done, to that effect the impugned judgment is erroneous in law and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 3. Having regard to the nature of the injuries, i.e., loss of the left eye and also dislocation of the hip joint, sustained on account of the accident, the Tribunal accepting the case of the claimant awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of eye but if neither awarded any compensation towards dislocation of the hip joint which is an important part of the body nor awarded any compensation under the heads; "loss of amenity" and "pain and suffering". 50,000/- towards loss of eye but if neither awarded any compensation towards dislocation of the hip joint which is an important part of the body nor awarded any compensation under the heads; "loss of amenity" and "pain and suffering". Therefore, in the appeal filed by the insurance company, this Court in exercise of its power under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C. and placing reliance upon the decision of the apex Court in the case of Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi, AIR 2000 SC 43 can enhance the compensation since the Tribunal has not discharged its statutory-duty in awarding just and reasonable compensation as the appeal filed by the insurance company is a continuation to the original proceedings and, therefore, this Court with a view to render justice to the claimants, can enhance the compensation by awarding just and reasonable compensation for dislocation of hip joint of the claimant. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that in exercise of power under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C. placing reliance upon the decision of the apex Court in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (supra) this Court can enhance the compensation even in the absence of any cross-objection of the respondents, but the principle decided therein do not apply to the fact situation of this case. 4. With reference to the aforesaid rival legal contentions, the following points arise for determination. (i) Whether the appeal is required to be allowed on the ground that the compensation awarded is arbitrary and unreasonable ? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded is required to be enhanced in the absence of any cross-objection of the respondents by invoking the power under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C. If so, to what amount of enhancement of compensation the respondent-claimant is entitled? (iii) What award? 5. The first point is required to be answered against the Insurance Company for the following reasons. It is an undisputed fact that the accident had taken place on 4.8.1995. On the date of filing of claim petition, the claimant-P.W.1 was 37 years old. He has stated that on account of the accident he had sustained grievous injuries, such as injury on his left eye and dislocation of his hip joint. Therefore, he had undergone treatment in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Bhawanipatna. He has spent more than Rs. 89,000/ -towards medical expenses. He has stated that on account of the accident he had sustained grievous injuries, such as injury on his left eye and dislocation of his hip joint. Therefore, he had undergone treatment in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Bhawanipatna. He has spent more than Rs. 89,000/ -towards medical expenses. No doubt the doctor has not been examined in the case in support of his claim. Despite the same, the Tribunal accepted the claim of the respondent-claimant on the basis of his evidence and also the documentary evidence, such as Ext.1-copy of F.I.R. in G.R: Case No.257/95, Ext.2-copy of charge sheet, Ext.3-copy of seizure list in the said G.R. Case. On behalf of the owner, O.P.W.1-Bimal Kanti Bose has been examined. 6. The Tribunal having accepted the case of the respondent claimant, granted compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in his favour for loss of left eye, by recording reasons. It is to be further noticed that the claimant had a dislocation of his hip joint for which no compensation has been awarded and also under other related heads such as pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Therefore, some compensation has to be awarded in that respect. Since on the basis of the permission obtained by the insurance company, this appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation, this Court is required to examine whether the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the respondent-claimant, is just and reasonable. In my considered view, the same is not just and reasonable for the reasons assigned in respect of the second point. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that award is on the higher side, cannot be accepted by this Court for the reason that the claimant had spent more than a month outside the State for his treatment. He has spent money towards attendant charges, transportation, conveyance and nutritious food. That apart, he lost his salary for that period. Therefore, he had claimed Rs. 1,08,657/- which is perfectly legal and valid. 7. The insurance company is also not entitled to have the right of recovery for the reasons that having availed permission under Section 170(b) of the M.V. Act, as it has not adduced evidence before the Tribunal and no reasoned order was passed by the Tribunal as per the legal principle laid down by the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, AIR 2004 SC 1531 . Therefore, in absence of evidence to show that the driver who had driven the vehicle on the fateful day had no valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the contention urged on behalf of the insurance company to give the right of recovery to it, cannot be accepted by this Court and the same is rejected. 8. Having answered the first point, I am of the view that the appeal is required to be examined to find out as to whether the respondent claimant is entitled for compensation placing reliance upon the decision under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C. in the case of Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (supra), wherein after referring to its earlier decisions, the apex Court has laid down the principle that the claimant in the appeal filed by the insurance company can seek for enhanced compensation amount. That right can be pressed into operation and rightly pressed into operation by the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant in this appeal for the reason that the Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable compensation. The apex Court in the case of Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (supra) at paragraph-17 after referring to Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C., has further laid down, the legal principle to the effect that in an appeal where no cross-objection is filed, the Court is required to determine the right of the claimant. paragraph-17 is extracted herein below: "17. In our approach we can also draw strength from the provisions of Rule 33 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is as under: "33. paragraph-17 is extracted herein below: "17. In our approach we can also draw strength from the provisions of Rule 33 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is as under: "33. 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 make and to pass or made such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court not 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, at though an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees: Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under Section 35-A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order." 9. Keeping the principle laid down by the apex Court in the case of Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (supra), I am of the considered view that award has to be made in respect of dislocation of hip joint, loss of amenity and pain and suffering. Accordingly Rs. 25,000/- each is awarded for dislocation of hip joint, loss of amenity and pain and suffering. The compensation is enhanced by Rs. 75,000/-, in addition to the amount already awarded. The insurer-appellant is directed to pay the same to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.