Judgment :- The appeal has been preferred by the Transport Corporation against the fastening of liability and against the award of Rs.8,56,000/- for the death of one Viji @ Vijayan aged 30 years, painter, earned about Rs.15,000/- per month, in the accident occurred on 14.1.2012. 2. Heard Mr. D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He would submit that the deceased was responsible for the accident as he tried to overtake the Corporation bus and was hit by the lorry coming in the opposite direction. However, the Tribunal based on the FIR filed against the driver, fastened liability on the Transport Corporation ignoring the complaint given by the driver on 21.1.2012. However, the Tribunal taking into consideration of evidence of PW2 eye witness, who gave complaint after the accident and also considering the filing of FIR against the driver of the Corporation bus, rightly found that the Corporation bus was driven rash and negligently. The Tribunal also rejected the evidence of RW1, Driver of the bus, in the teeth of PW2 evidence. That apart, if the driver was so sure that the deceased alone was responsible for the accident, nothing prevented him from giving complaint immediately after the accident or atleast he would have informed the management to file a complaint. Secondly, the appellant would have examined the driver of the bus to speak about the manner of accident. No such step has been taken by the Transport Corporation. Therefore, the finding reached by the Tribunal that the driver of the corporation bus was responsible for the accident cannot be found fault with and the same is confirmed. 3. The Tribunal rightly took Rs.6000/- as monthly income of the deceased. However, failed to add future prospects. The deceased was aged about only 30 years and therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TAN MAC 1 (SC), 50% is added as future prospects and if it is added, the monthly income would be Rs.6000/- + Rs.3000 = Rs.9000/-. For the deceased, there has been 4 dependents. A close scrutiny of the claim petition would show that all of them are major. Therefore, 1/3 has to be deducted. After deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses, the loss of income would be Rs.9000/- -1/3 = Rs.6000/-. For the deceased, there has been 4 dependents. A close scrutiny of the claim petition would show that all of them are major. Therefore, 1/3 has to be deducted. After deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses, the loss of income would be Rs.9000/- -1/3 = Rs.6000/-. As per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TAN MAC 1 (SC), multiplier applicable for the age of the deceased, namely 30 years, is 17 and the loss of income would be as follows: Rs.6000/- + 50 % - 1/3 X 12 X 17 = Rs.12,24,000/-. 4. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent. The claimant was aged about 27 years. Loosing of husband is very horrible, that too, in the age of 27 years. Hence she has to face mental agony both physically and psychologically. Apart from that stigma is attached to the widow. It is very unfortunate, even participation of a widow in the functions is treated inauspicious and It is a reality, which she has to face this kind of tortures. Therefore, Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection to the second petitioner is not comfort enough to console and compensate and hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Rs.10,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Rs.10,000/- awarded towards transportation is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly the award of the Tribunal Rs.8,56,000/- is enhanced to Rs.14,04,000/- in the appeal filed by the Transport Corporation. 5. Without any appeal or cross appeal by the respondents/claimants, this court enhances the compensation payable to the claimants in the admission stage itself in the appeal filed by the Transport Corporation. There is no necessity to issue notice to the respondents/claimants, especially when they are to be benefited by the enhancement in the appeal. Therefore, there may not be any violation of principles of natural justice. This Court has power and jurisdiction to enhance the compensation, even in the appeal filed by the Transport Corporation or by the Insurance company, as this court can re-appreciate the evidence on record and redetermine the compensation under Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C. and under Section 151 C.P.C. It is well settled law that the appeal is a continuation of original proceedings. The provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act are beneficial in nature and therefore, the compensation being awarded should be capable of consoling, comforting and compensating the victims of the road accidents. In an endeavour to award just and reasonable compensation, this court enhances the award amount from Rs.8.56,000 to Rs.14,04,000/-, rounded of to Rs.14,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The appeal is dismissed with enhancement. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. 6. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount as per the order of this Court, along with interest and costs within six weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the Director, Chairman, the Finance Adviser-cum-Chief Accountant of the Transport Corporation appear before this Court on 28th April,2015. Office is directed to issue the order copy directly to the respondents/claimants as the matter is only posted for admission. No costs.