ORDER : V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. Being aggrieved over the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai made in M.C.O.P.No. 210 of 2010, dated 21.02.2012. the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 2. The appellant is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No. 210 of 2010 and the respondents 1 to 6 are the claimants. The case of the claimants 1 to 6 is that on 04.02.2009 at about 1.00 a.m., the accident took place at Manamelkudi north. In the said accident, son of respondents 1 & 2 and brother of respondents 3 to 6 namely Sakthi @ Sathiyaseelan suffered grievous injury. After treatment in the Government Hospital, Manamelkudi the injured was taken to Rajaji Hospital, Madurai on 04.02.2009 and he died at 7.45 a.m. on the same day. 3. The accident was caused by Tanker lorry bearing Registration No. TN 20 AJ 7260 belonging to the seventh respondent insured with the appellant. The deceased was travelling in a bullock-cart and the tanker lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed violating of the Traffic Rules dashed against bullock-cart. The persons travelling in the bullock cart including deceased suffered injuries and deceased subsequently died. According to the respondents 1 to 6, the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month as a fisher man. He was doing loading and unloading of sands for the purpose of building construction and was doing agricultural work and he was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and claimed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation. 4. The case of the appellant is that except first respondent, others are not the legal heirs of the deceased and they are not entitled to maintain the claim petition. The appellant denied the manner of accident, age, monthly income, avocation of the deceased and accident was inevitable and not due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the 7th respondent. They also denied that the deceased was the only bread winner of the family. The claim of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation is unjust and unreasonable. 5. Before the Tribunal M.C.O.P.No. 210 of 2010 was tried along with M.C.O.P.No. 39 of 2010 and 109 of 2012 wherein the claimants claimed a compensation due to very same accident. A common evidence was recorded. The second respondent was examined as P.W. 1 and 7 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P7. 15,00,000/- as compensation is unjust and unreasonable. 5. Before the Tribunal M.C.O.P.No. 210 of 2010 was tried along with M.C.O.P.No. 39 of 2010 and 109 of 2012 wherein the claimants claimed a compensation due to very same accident. A common evidence was recorded. The second respondent was examined as P.W. 1 and 7 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P7. No evidence was let in and no document was marked on behalf of the appellant. 6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings and evidence came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 7th respondent and that appellant and 7th respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. By the order dated 21.02.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,54,000/- on the following heads:- Loss of income 2.000 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 3,84,000.00 Loss of Estate and loss of consortium = Rs. 50,000.00 Loss of love and affection = Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of Transportation = Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of funeral expenses and conventional damages = Rs. 10,000.00 Total Rs. 4,54,000.00 7. The Tribunal directed the appellant and 7th respondent to pay this amount together with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition i.e., 30.02.009 till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the bullock cart was driven at night time without any lamp. That is why the accident took place and driver of the Tanker Lorry cannot be responsible for the accident. One Kathamuthu, who drove the bullock cart was responsible for the alleged accident. The deceased was bachelor aged about 23 years. The respondents 3 to 6 are not dependents on the deceased especially when the respondents 1 to 4 are admittedly major and they are not entitled to get any compensation due to the death of the deceased. The counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- for loss of estate and consortium and awarding a sum Rs. 3,84,000/- as loss of income. The total compensation of Rs. 4,54,000/- is highly excessive and not tenable. The learned counsel for appellant further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of deceased for arriving at multiplier. 9. 50,000/- for loss of estate and consortium and awarding a sum Rs. 3,84,000/- as loss of income. The total compensation of Rs. 4,54,000/- is highly excessive and not tenable. The learned counsel for appellant further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of deceased for arriving at multiplier. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments:- 2014 (3) T.A.C. 192 (Mad.) Tamil Nadu S.T.C. Ltd. v. Jayalakshmi paragraph 10 of the judgment reads as hereunder:- "10.... the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, 50% of monthly income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, whereas, the Tribunal deducted only ?rd. Therefore, out of Rs. 9,000/- a sum of Rs. 4,500/- (50%) is deducted towards personal expenses. ..." 2014 (1) TAC 145 (P & H) (Urmila Rishi v. Joginder Singh) in paragraph 6 of the judgment reads as follows:- 6....... The multiplier adopted in this case by the Tribunla, which to me appears to be appropriate, is 9. 2014 (1) T.A.C. 299 (Ker.)(Mariyumma and others v. Govinda) in paragraphs 21 and 22 reads as hereunder:- 21........ the multiplier applicable to the age of the first appellant, who is the mother, has to be adopted considering her short life expectancy. 22... the Apex Court held that the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 8 by taking the average age of the parents who were 55 and 56 years of age and allowed the appeal." 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 contended that the Tribunal properly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and has come to correct conclusion that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tanker Lorry belonging to 7th respondent. Appellant and 7th respondent failed to let in any contra evidence to that of P.Ws.1 to 3. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 2,000/-. The Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the deceased besides being a fisherman also worked in the construction of buildings by loading and unloading the sand and worked in agricultural field. The Tribunal failed to consider the judgment of this Court and Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month. 2,000/-. The Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the deceased besides being a fisherman also worked in the construction of buildings by loading and unloading the sand and worked in agricultural field. The Tribunal failed to consider the judgment of this Court and Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 also contended that as per Order 41, Rule 33 C.P.C., this Court has power to enhance the compensation even without an appeal or cross objections. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following judgments:- "2007 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC) (New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Kalpana and others) 10. In both G.M. Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176 , and U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 (4) SCC 462 , the multiplier appears to have been adopted taking note of the prevalent banking rate of interest. 11. In Susamma Thomas's case (supra) it was noted that the normal rate of interest was about 10% and accordingly the multiplier was worked out. As the interest rate is on the decline, the multiplier has no consequentially be raised. Therefore, instead of 16 the multiplier of 18 as was adopted in Trilok Chandra's case (supra) appears to be appropriate. In fact in Trilok Chand's case (supra), after reference to Second Schedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects. It was pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide, but cannot be said to be invariable ready reckoner. However, the appropriate highest multiplier was held to be 18. The highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, as the former is the normal retirement age. (See: New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Charlie and another, 2005(10) SCC 720 ). 12. Considering the age of the deceased it would be appropriate to fix the multiplier at 13. The MACT itself found that the income was not established. At some point of time it was stated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 6,000/- per month. (See: New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Charlie and another, 2005(10) SCC 720 ). 12. Considering the age of the deceased it would be appropriate to fix the multiplier at 13. The MACT itself found that the income was not established. At some point of time it was stated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 6,000/- per month. In the absence of any definite material about the income, monthly contribution to the family, after deduction for personal expenses is fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month I.e. Annually Rs. 36,000/-. Applying the mutiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs. 4,68,000/-. The same shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. From the date of claim till the date of actual payment. 2015 (1) TNMAC 451 (TNSTC (Kumbakonam) Ltd., v. R. Kalavathi) in paragraphs 8, 9 and 12 reads as hereunder:- 8. Though the Appeal had been filed only on the question of negligence, a perusal of the Award would show that the Tribunal committed a grave error in making deduction from Rs. 3,000/- which was determined as monthly contribution of the deceased relying upon Kalpana's case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Kalpana, 2007 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC) : 2007 (3) SCC 538 , fixed the monthly contribution of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- after deducting ?rd towards the Personal Expenses in the absence of any evidence regarding income. When that being the case, the Tribunal should not have deducted further ? from Rs. 3,000/- the monthly contribution as per the Kalpana's case. Therefore, the said deduction has to be deleted. 9. That apart, a Division Bench of this Court in M. Sengabagam v. Vinod Kumar and others, 2013 (2) TN MAC 450, took Rs. 6000/- as monthly income of the deceased in the absence of documentary evidence for the monthly income. The accident in that case occurred on 28.12.2008, whereas in this case, the accident occurred only on 27.9.2009. Therefore, this Court can adopt the said determination and fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-. 12. Though Mr. 6000/- as monthly income of the deceased in the absence of documentary evidence for the monthly income. The accident in that case occurred on 28.12.2008, whereas in this case, the accident occurred only on 27.9.2009. Therefore, this Court can adopt the said determination and fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-. 12. Though Mr. D. Sivaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that this Court cannot enhance the amount in the absence of Appeal relying upon the Judgment cited supra, the Appeal is continuation of the original proceedings and this Court has got powers and jurisdiction under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enhance the amount after appreciation of pleadings and evidence. What is required to be given is only just Compensation and the technicality cannot stand in the way of rendering complete justice, especially when the breadwinner of the family died and the family members are left into lurch. To mitigate the situation caused due to untimely death of the breadwinner of the family, the Compensation is given. Moreover, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial in nature which are intended to Console, Comfort and Compensate the victims of the road accident and the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act had been declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments. 2015 (1) TNMAC 354 (DB) (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sellammal and others) in paragraph 20 & 21 of the judgment reads as hereunder:- 20. Though, no Cross-Objection is filed by the Claimants herein, this Court taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, has thought it fit to enhance the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is well settled that Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of the Civil Procedure empowers the Appellate Court to grant relief to a person, who has neither appealed nor filed any Cross-Objections. The object of this provision is to do complete justice between the parties. 21. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the Court to award such Compensation as appears to be just which had been interpreted to mean just in accordance with law and it can be more than the amount claimed by the Claimants. The object of this provision is to do complete justice between the parties. 21. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the Court to award such Compensation as appears to be just which had been interpreted to mean just in accordance with law and it can be more than the amount claimed by the Claimants. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are clearly a beneficial legislation and hence, should be interpreted in a way to enable the Court to assess Just Compensation. The scope of Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the power of the High Court to enhance the Award amount in accident cases in the absence of Cross-Objections had been discussed by the Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, 2004 (2) TN MAC 398 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 674 , where the Apex Court has held that the Court is required to determine Just Compensation and there is no other limitation or restriction for awarding such Compensation and in appropriate cases wherefrom the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/Court considers that the Claimant is entitled to get more Compensation than claimed the Tribunal may pass such award and would empower the Court to enhance the Compensation at the Appellate stage even without the injured filing an Appeal of Cross-Objections. 2013 (2) TNMAC 450 (DB) (M. Sengabagam v. Vinod Kumar) in paragraph 10 of the judgment reads as hereunder:- 10. Tribunal had taken the Notional Income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- and the Annual Income at Rs. 54,000/-. Learned Counsel for Claimants submitted that at the time of accident, deceased was doing cattle business apart from doing Agricultural work and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Though the Claimants have not produced any documentary proof to show that deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, considering the nature of agricultural work that was doing at the time of accident and also the Firewood business run by the deceased, we are of the view that the National Income of Rs. 4,500/- fixed by the Tribunal is very low. By doing the Agricultural work and Firewood business, deceased would have earned at least Rs. 200/- per day I.e. Rs. 6,000/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs. 4,500/- fixed by the Tribunal is very low. By doing the Agricultural work and Firewood business, deceased would have earned at least Rs. 200/- per day I.e. Rs. 6,000/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs. 6,0000/- per month. " 12. I have carefully perused the materials on record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 13. Before the Tribunal, the appellant and the 7th respondent did not let in any evidence, especially the driver of the tanker lorry was not examined. The Tribunal considered the materials and evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and held that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tanker lorry. The appellant and the seventh respondent having failed to disprove the evidence of the P.W.1 to P.W.3 cannot now contend that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of the Tanker lorry. There is no reason to set aside the conclusion of Tribunal that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Tanker Lorry or to hold the Kathamuthu, who was the driver of the bullock cart, was responsible for the accident. 14. The contention of the appellant is that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal taking into consideration of the age of the deceased is wrong. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the first respondent and should have applied the multiplier applicable to the age of the first respondent. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant did not advance this contention. In these judgments, it had been held that the age of the claimant is also one of the factors to be considered for arriving at multiplier in case of fatal accident. But that is not the sole factor in arriving at the multiplier. Various other factors like prevailing rate of interest, age of the deceased etc., are also must be considered. In the present case, along with parents of deceased brothers including minor brothers of deceased are also claimants. But that is not the sole factor in arriving at the multiplier. Various other factors like prevailing rate of interest, age of the deceased etc., are also must be considered. In the present case, along with parents of deceased brothers including minor brothers of deceased are also claimants. Even though, the appellant has alleged that apart from the first respondent, other claimants are not dependents and some of the claimants are major, the appellant has not let in any evidence to disprove the averments of respondents 1 to 6 that the deceased was the sole bread winner. Naturally, the minor brothers are dependents on their elder brother. Taking into consideration the facts of this case, in entirety, I am of the view that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is proper and valid. The third contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation granted under the head of loss of consortium and loss of income are not correct and that the total compensation of Rs. 4,54,000/- are excessive is untenable. Except making this bald contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has not substantiated the said contention by any acceptable materials. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 2,000/-. The respondents 1 to 6 have let in cogent evidence to prove the income of the deceased. 16. In any event, in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have fixed Rs. 6,000/- per month as held by this Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (2) TNMAC 450 (DB) and the judgment reported in 2015 (1) TNMAC 451. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 has considerable force. The following two judgments of this Court referred to above, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs. 6,000/-. After deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, the deceased being a bachelor, the monthly income is arrived at Rs. 3,000/-. On this basis, loss of income is arrived at Rs. 3,000/- x 12 x 16 = 5,76,000/-. The order of Tribunal is modified to this extent. 18. 6,000/-. After deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, the deceased being a bachelor, the monthly income is arrived at Rs. 3,000/-. On this basis, loss of income is arrived at Rs. 3,000/- x 12 x 16 = 5,76,000/-. The order of Tribunal is modified to this extent. 18. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 contended that even without an appeal or cross objection, this Court on given cases can enhance the compensation on the facts and circumstances of the case. A division Bench of this Court (in which I am one of the party) considered all the judgments on this point and held that this Court has power to enhance the compensation taking into consideration the facts and circumstances even without an appeal or cross objection. 19. In view of the settled position of law, this Court modifies the award of the Tribunal and enhancing the compensation as stated above. 20. In the result, the order of Tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Loss of Income Rs. 3,84,000 Rs. 5,76,000 enhanced 2. Loss of estate and loss of consortium Rs. 50,000 Rs. 50,000 confirmed 3. Loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000 Rs. 50,000 enhanced 4. Transportation Rs. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 confirmed 5. Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000 Rs. 10,000 Confirmed Total Rs. 4,54,000 Rs. 6,91,000 Enhanced by Rs. 2,37,000 21. For the reasons aforesaid, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, is disposed of and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 6,91,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Ninety one thousand only). The Appellant is directed to deposit the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum, to the credit of MCOP.No. 210 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, after deducting the amount already deposited if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the first respondent would be entitled to Rs. 1,75,000/- and the second respondent would be entitled to Rs. 2,25,000/- and the respondents 3, 5 & 6 would be entitled to Rs. 70,000/- each (70,000 x 3 = 2,10,000) and the fourth respondent would be entitled to Rs. On such deposit being made, the first respondent would be entitled to Rs. 1,75,000/- and the second respondent would be entitled to Rs. 2,25,000/- and the respondents 3, 5 & 6 would be entitled to Rs. 70,000/- each (70,000 x 3 = 2,10,000) and the fourth respondent would be entitled to Rs. 81,000/- with respective proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn. The Tribunal shall deposit the share of the respondents 5 and 6, who are minor claimants, in a Fixed Deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks, which shall be renewed periodically till their attain majority. The first respondent-mother of the minor is permitted to withdraw interest on the share of her minor child, viz., the respondents 5 & 6 herein, once in three months from the Bank directly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.