Judgment :- 1.The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit filed this appeal as against the judgement and decree dated 30.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruppathur (Fast Track Court), Vellore District, in O.S.No.43 of 2005, which was filed by the plaintiffs seeking compensation for the electrocution death of one Pushparaj. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: (a) The respondents 1 to 6 herein, as plaintiffs, have filed the suit seeking compensation for the electrocution death of one Pushparaj. The appellants/defendants 1 and 2, who are the Electricity Board and official concerned resisted the suit by filing written statement. D3 to D5 also filed the written statement claiming that they are also the legal heirs of the deceased and also contending that D3-Sampoornam was the legitimate wife of the deceased Pushparaj and not P1-Malliga. (b) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues. (c) During trial, the first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. On the defendants side, one Karthikeysan examined himself as D.W.1 and D3-Sampoornam examined herself as D.W.2 along with D.W3 and Exs.B1 to B13 were marked. (d) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit, awarding compensation of Rs.4,32,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization in favour of all the plaintiffs and D3 to D5. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree of the trial Court, D1 and D2 filed this appeal on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants/D1 and D2, placing reliance on the grounds of appeal, would develop his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: (i) The quantum of amount awarded at by the trial Court is not based on any sound principles. (ii) There is one other suit O.S.No.195/2003 filed by D3 to D5 in the present suit for the same relief and without dismissing that suit, the present suit was decreed. (iii) There was no evidence to show that the deceased-Pushparaj was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month. (ii) There is one other suit O.S.No.195/2003 filed by D3 to D5 in the present suit for the same relief and without dismissing that suit, the present suit was decreed. (iii) There was no evidence to show that the deceased-Pushparaj was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month. (iv) The interest awarded at the rate of 7.5% was on the higher side. Accordingly, the learned counsel would pray for modifying the award passed by the lower Court. 6. In a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguements as put forth and set forth on the side of the appellants/D1 and D2, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would argue that absolutely there is no ground for interfering with the findings of the trial Court, because, the trial Court, in a reasonable manner assessed the compensation and it is neither on the higher side nor on the lower side; that the plaintiffs have also not preferred any appeal and in such a case, this appeal has to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents 7 to 9/defendants 3 to 5 would submit that the trial Court was not justified in giving a finding that P1 happened to be the legitimate wife of the deceased-Pushparaj and not D3; that the quantum awarded was on the lower side, because 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses, which the deceased would have incurred for keeping his body and soul together, had he been alive, but there should have been only 1/5th deduction taking into consideration the number of beneficiaries. Accordingly, the learned counsel would pray for enhancing the compensation and also for erasing the finding as against D3 as though she happened to be the illegitimate wife of the deceased Pushparaj. 8. The points for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the quantum awarded by the trial Court was not in commensurate with the well established principles governing the assessment of compensation? (2) Whether the respondents 7 to 9/defendants 3 to 5 are without there being any appeal or cross-appeal filed by them, entitled to put forth their grievance that the trial Court should not have given a finding as against D3 as though she was not the legitimate wife of the deceased Pushparaj, (3) Whether without disposing of O.S.No.193 of 2005 filed by D3 to D5, the lower Court was justified in disposing of the suit O.S.No.43 of 2005? (4) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgement and decree of the trial Court?" 9. All these points are taken together for discussion as they are interwoven and interlinked, entwined and interconnected with one another. 10. Narratively but precisely, broadly but briefly the relevant facts which are indubitable and indisputable would run thus: The deceased-Pushparaj- a coolie worker died due to electrocution. P6-Arumugham and D5-Chinnammal are the parents of the deceased Pushparaj. P1-Malliga claims to be his legitimate wife and she gave birth to P2 to P5-the children during the wed lock between her and the deceased-Pushparaj. Whereas, D3-Sampoornam would claim to be the legitimate wife of the deceased Pushparaj and she gave birth to D4-Nagesh. 11. Regarding the electrocution death of Pushparaj is concerned, there is no controversy. Even before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants has not canvassed the appellants case as against such finding. However, the learned counsel for the appellants would confine his argument mainly for reducing the compensation by contending that without any basis the monthly income of the deceased was assessed in a sum of Rs.3,500/- and that too during the year 2002, when there was no likelihood of a coolie earning Rs.3,500/- per month. 12. At this juncture, I would like to point out that the deceased died at the age of 42. It is therefore crystal clear that a man, who did not become old and having several children and his parents to be looked after along with his wife, might not have simply kept quite without earning. Witnesses might lie, but the circumstances would not do so. The fact remains that he was hale and healthy at the relevant time of his death and earning. Even in the year 2002, a coolie might have earned easily a sum of Rs.3,500/-per month. Even though the plaintiffs claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/-per month, the lower Court, correctly, considering the pros and cons of the matter, fixed the monthly income of the deceased in a sum of Rs.3,500/-, warranting no interference in this appeal. 13. Even in the year 2002, a coolie might have earned easily a sum of Rs.3,500/-per month. Even though the plaintiffs claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/-per month, the lower Court, correctly, considering the pros and cons of the matter, fixed the monthly income of the deceased in a sum of Rs.3,500/-, warranting no interference in this appeal. 13. Even though there was controversy between P1-Malliga and D3-Sampoornam as to who is the legitimate wife of the deceased, yet, the trial Court, despite giving the finding that P1-Malliga happened to be the legitimate wife and D3 was not so, awarded compensation in favour of D3 also, by applying the theory that even a lady who is not legally wedded could claim compensation, because she was depending upon the income of the deceased. So far as this case is concerned, at this juncture, I would like to point out that this Court need not probe into the correctness or otherwise of the ratiocination adhered to by the trial Court in awarding compensation in favour of D3 along with others, because no appeal or cross-appeal has been filed by any one of those defendants, namely, D3 to D5. As such, without such cross-appeal this Court cannot be called upon to decide on those issues. 14. It is a trite proposition of law as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2010(7) SCC 717 [Laxman Tatyaba Kankate and another vs. Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak] that if there are findings against a party then without filing appeal or cross-objection such party could not canvass as against the findings. However, if the findings are in favour of a party then by way of buttressing and supporting the findings, the party concerned can put forth any plausible argument. 15. It is therefore quite clear that without filing appeal or cross-appeal, the dispute decided by the lower Court cannot be agitated by the non-appellants, who are only respondents herein. 16. Reverting back to the quantum arrived at by the lower Court, I would like to observe that the lower Court applied the multiplier 15, taking into consideration the plight of the dependants, who are 9 in number, so to say, six plaintiffs and three defendants. 17. 16. Reverting back to the quantum arrived at by the lower Court, I would like to observe that the lower Court applied the multiplier 15, taking into consideration the plight of the dependants, who are 9 in number, so to say, six plaintiffs and three defendants. 17. The deduction of 1/3rd from the annual income of the deceased for the expenses, which the deceased would have incurred, for maintaining himself, cannot be stated to be unconscionable or exorbitant or without any basis. 18. To the risk of repetition and pleonasm, but without being tautalogous, I would like to point out that a man who was expected to maintain as many as 9 persons would have required at least 1/3rd of the income for maintaining himself and as such, the deduction resorted to by the trial Court cannot be found fault with. 19. The trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/-towards transportation and funeral expenses, which also in my opinion cannot be stated to be exorbitant and there is also no appeal or cross-appeal challenging the same. 20. The trial Court awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annuam on the sum awarded as compensation, which also in my opinion cannot be treated as exorbitant. 21. As such, taking into account the plight of the dependants of the deceased, I am of the view that the Electricity Board could have refrained from filing the appeal itself and as such, I could see no merit in the appeal. 22. Regarding the contention on the side of the appellants/Electricity Board that one other suit O.S.No.195 of 2003, filed by D3 to D5, claiming claiming compensation as against Electricity Board for the death of Pushparaj should have been dismissed, is concerned, the normal practice is that when parallel suits are pending in the same Court or in different Courts, steps should have taken to see that both the suits are taken together by one and the same Judge and disposed of as per law. 23. No doubt, in this case, such a procedure was not resorted to. Now it is too late in the day on the part of any one to find fault with the procedure resorted to by the trial Court. 23. No doubt, in this case, such a procedure was not resorted to. Now it is too late in the day on the part of any one to find fault with the procedure resorted to by the trial Court. Since, the plaintiffs in the other suit O.S.No.195 of 2003 are the defendants 3, 4 and 5 here in the present suit and this judgement is very much binding on them, there is no question of that suit being kept on the file, and automatically, that suit shall get extinguished and the court concerned shall record the same and dismiss it. 24. With the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.