Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree, dated 21.06.2007, passed in M.C.O.P.No.2079 of 2001, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [I Additional District Court], Madurai. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.2079 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [I Additional District Court], Madurai. The respondents herein filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the husband of the first respondent, father of the respondents 2 and 3 and son of the respondents 4 and 5. 3. The deceased was working as Grade I Police Constable in the Police Department. While he was returning in a Van, bearing Registration No.TN-59-G-0438, belonging to the Department of the appellant, from Chennai to Madurai, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant, since the driver of the van belonging to the appellant, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the roadside tree. In the said accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries. In spite of intensive treatment, he died on 02.09.2000. Therefore, the respondents filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. 4. The appellant filed counter statement before the Tribunal. According to the appellant, the accident did not happen due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van belonging to the appellant. The driver of the van was driving the vehicle in a moderate speed and a Cow suddenly, crossed the road. To avoid hitting of Cow, the driver turned the Van and hit against the tree. Therefore, the accident did not happen due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant's vehicle. The appellant also contended that the amount claimed is on the higher side. 5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the first respondent was examined as PW.1 and two other witnesses, viz., A.Jeyamani and M.Geetha, were examined as PWs.2 and 3 respectively and eighteen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18. On behalf of the appellant, one V.Shanmugaiah was examined as RW.1 and no oral and documentary evidence was marked. 6. 5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the first respondent was examined as PW.1 and two other witnesses, viz., A.Jeyamani and M.Geetha, were examined as PWs.2 and 3 respectively and eighteen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18. On behalf of the appellant, one V.Shanmugaiah was examined as RW.1 and no oral and documentary evidence was marked. 6. The Tribunal considering all the materials on record, came the conclusion that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question and awarded a sum of Rs.5,98,000/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are as under: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Loss of Income 5,76,000 2 Medical expenses 15,000 3 Funeral expenses 2,000 4 Loss of consortium 5,000 Total 5,98,000 7. Against the said Judgment and decree, dated 21.07.2007, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. PW.2 himself admitted that to avoid hitting of the Cow, the driver turned the vehicle on the side of the road and hit the vehicle. RW.1 also deposed that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant's vehicle. The driver was acquitted in the Criminal Proceedings. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant further contended that the award of compensation is on the higher side. The Tribunal did not consider the fact that the first respondent is receiving family pension and did not deduct 1/3 amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, he prayed for allowing of the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 contended that the Tribunal has given cogent and valid reasons for coming to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. Further, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the family pension given to the first respondent and deducted 1/3 of the amount, and then only, the Tribunal has arrived at compensation for loss of income. Further, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the family pension given to the first respondent and deducted 1/3 of the amount, and then only, the Tribunal has arrived at compensation for loss of income. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken the gross income of the deceased while arriving at loss of income. He has also produced the relevant medical bills, viz., Exs.P4 to P13, for having spent money for the medical expenses of the deceased. The said bills are not disputed by the appellant and therefore, entire amounts, as claimed for medical expenses must be granted. The Tribunal awarded very meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and has not granted any amount for loss of love and affection for the respondents 2 to 5. He further contended that this Court must enhance the compensation for the loss of consortium and grant compensation for loss of love and affection. He also contended that even though no appeal or cross objection is filed by the respondents, this Court has power to enhance the compensation under Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the arguments put forth by them and perused the materials on record. 11. The points for consideration in the appeal are as follows: (i) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded is just and proper? (iii) Whether the Court can enhance the compensation even without any appeal or cross-objection by the claimants under Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C.? 12. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. In order to avoid hitting of Cow, he turned the Van and thereby, the accident had occurred. According to the appellant, at the time of accident, the driver was driving the vehicle at a moderate speed. The Tribunal considered this contention and rejected the same. The Tribunal has held that had the driver driven the vehicle at a moderate speed, he could have applied brake and stopped the Van without hitting the Cow. According to the appellant, at the time of accident, the driver was driving the vehicle at a moderate speed. The Tribunal considered this contention and rejected the same. The Tribunal has held that had the driver driven the vehicle at a moderate speed, he could have applied brake and stopped the Van without hitting the Cow. Only because the driver was driving the Van at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, he turned the Van on the side of the road and hit the tree. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van. The said reasoning is proper and valid. There is no reason to set aside the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. 13. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, it is now well settled by various Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the compensation must be just and proper and it should not be too high or too meagre. Similarly, even without an appeal or cross-objection by the claimants, the compensation amount can be enhanced. The respondents stated that the deceased was working as Grade I Police Constable at the time of accident and he was drawing a salary of Rs.5,782/- p.m. He would have been promoted upto the grade of Inspector over a period of time. The appellant did not dispute this fact. On this aspect, it has been held in the various Judgments that the salary of the deceased could be enhanced upto 50% of the last drawn salary of the deceased. In the present case, the Tribunal did not take into account the fact that the deceased would have got increased salary over a period of time. Further, PW.3, produced the salary certificate of the deceased and deposed that the deceased was receiving a sum of Rs.5,782/- as net salary after deduction. The Tribunal did not take into consideration, the gross salary of the deceased, but also reduced the net salary, while considering the loss of income. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the first respondent is receiving family pension and arrived at the quantum of loss of income. The Tribunal did not take into consideration, the gross salary of the deceased, but also reduced the net salary, while considering the loss of income. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the first respondent is receiving family pension and arrived at the quantum of loss of income. In view of the fact that the first respondent did not take into consideration the gross salary of the deceased, possibility of enhanced income, which the deceased would have received, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate for the appellant that 1/3 of the amount must be deducted. The Tribunal granted only Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. This amount is very low. Based on the postmortem certificate Ex.P15, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 35 years. The appellant has not produced any contra evidence. The first respondent lost her loving husband. The Tribunal granted only Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. It is very meagre for an young person, who lost her husband. Therefore, I am enhancing the compensation to Rs.50,000/- from Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium. The Tribunal did not grant any compensation towards loss of love and affection to the respondents 2 to 5. I am granting Rs.25,000/- each to the respondents 2, 3 and 5. However, I am not granting any enhanced compensation to the fourth respondent, as he died pending appeal. 14. The next question is whether the respondents are entitled to Rs.70,151.50 towards medical expenses. The Tribunal did not take into consideration Exs.P4 to P13 and granted only Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses instead of Rs.70,151.50. I am inclined to grant Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses instead of Rs.15,000/-, as the respondents have produced medical bills Exs.P4 to P13 for being spent this amount and the reason given by the Tribunal for granting only Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses is not valid. 15. The break-up details of the award thus modified by this Court are as follows: Sl.No. Description Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed /modified / added 1 Loss of Income 5,76,000 5,76,000 confirmed 2 Medical expenses 15,000 70,000 enhanced by Rs.55,000 3 Funeral expenses 2,000 2,000 confirmed 4 Loss of Consortium 5,000 50,000 enhanced by Rs.45,000 5 Loss of Love and affection to the respondents 2, 3 & 5 [each Rs.25,000/-] - 75,000 granted Total 5,98,000 7,73,000 enhanced by Rs.1,75,000 16. For the reasons aforesaid, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.7,73,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs seventy three thousand only), as total compensation. The appellant is directed to deposit the said amount with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition on Rs.5,98,000/- and on the enhanced amount from the date of this order till the date of deposit, less the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. From the enhanced amount, viz., Rs.1,75,000/-,the respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each and the fifth respondent is entitled to Rs.25,000/- with respective proportionate accrued interest and costs. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The Tribunal shall deposit the shares of the respondents 2 and 3, who are minor claimants, in a Fixed Deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks, which shall be renewed periodically till they attain majority. The first respondent – mother of the minors is permitted to withdraw interest on the shares of her minor children, viz., the respondents 2 and 3, once in three months from the bank directly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.