Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree, dated 27.03.2003, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1401 of 2001, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Fast Track Court No.I], Tirunelveli. 2. The appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is the respondent and the respondents are the petitioners/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1401 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Fast Track Court No.I], Tirunelveli. 3. According to the respondents, on 17.08.2001, the husband of the first respondent viz., Chandrasekaran was travelling in a town bus, bearing Registration No.TN-72-N-0720, belonging to the appellant from Tuticorin Harbour to Tuticorin Town. At 3.30 p.m., while the said bus was nearing the Church in the Beach Road, the deceased informed the Conductor to stop the bus. The driver after getting signal from the Conductor stopped the bus. Immediately, the deceased and others got down from the said bus. While the deceased was in halfway in alighting from the bus, the Conductor in a careless manner gave signal in starting the bus. The driver took the bus suddenly and the said Chandrasekaran fell down and the back wheel of the bus ran over on his head. Due to the said impact, the said Chandrasekaran died on the spot. 4. According to the respondents, the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident, and working as a Fisherman and earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- p.m. Therefore, they filed claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1401 of 2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Fast Track Court No.I], Tirunelveli, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. 5. The appellant filed counter statement before the Tribunal denying all the allegations made by the respondents. According to the appellant, the driver of the bus was driving the bus carefully in a moderate speed and suddenly, the deceased jumped from the bus and the accident occurred. The appellant had stated that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. The compensation claimed by the respondents is on the higher side and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The appellant had stated that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. The compensation claimed by the respondents is on the higher side and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, the first respondent was examined herself as P.W.1 and one Joseph Mani, who travelled along with the deceased, was examined as P.W.2 and one Thirumugaraj, the owner of the Boat was examined as P.W.3 and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4. On the side of the appellant, one Nagarajan, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. 7. 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 bus belonging to the appellant and awarded a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- as compensation with interest @ 9% 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 4,32,000 2 Loss of consortium 15,000 3 Funeral expenses 3,000 4 Loss of love and affection 10,000 5 Loss of Expectation of life 10,000 Total 4,70,000 8. Against the said order, dated 27.03.2003, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the person, who gave complaint to the police, based on which, the First Information Report was registered, was not examined. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. He had categorically stated that only due to the fact that the deceased suddenly jumped from the bus, the accident occurred. He further contended that the Tribunal has not given any valid reason for rejecting the evidence of the driver-R.W.1. The conclusion of the Tribunal based on the First Information Report and evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, is not correct. 10. In support of his submission, he relied on the following Juidgments: (i) National Insurance Company Ltd. Pudukottai Vs. Rani and others [ 2004 (3) LW 578 ], wherein in paragraph 35, it has been held as follows: "35. The conclusion of the Tribunal based on the First Information Report and evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, is not correct. 10. In support of his submission, he relied on the following Juidgments: (i) National Insurance Company Ltd. Pudukottai Vs. Rani and others [ 2004 (3) LW 578 ], wherein in paragraph 35, it has been held as follows: "35. The legal position can be summed up as under:- (i) The power conferred under Order XLI Rule-33 to the Appellate Court is a very wide power to do complete justice, but however, discretion to use such power is to be exercised judiciously with care and caution and only in rare cases. (ii) The nature of power conferred under Order XLI Rule 33 has been explained by the Supreme Court in the rulings reported in 2003 (3) Law Weekly 721 and 1998 (8) SCC 222 (both cited supra). The provision confers power of widest amplitude on the appellate Court so as to do complete justice between the parties. The power is subject to at least three limitations. Firstly, the power cannot be exercised to the prejudice or disadvantage or a person not a party before the Court. Secondly, a claim given up or lost cannot be revived. Thirdly, such part of the decree which essentially ought to have been appealed against or objected to by a party and which that party has permitted to achieve a finality cannot be reversed to the advantage of such party. The Court can invoke such power provided it is consistent with the findings arrived at by the appellate court and that the same would remove the inconsistencies, inequities or inequalities in reliefs granted to similarly placed parties. The ruling reported in 1999 (II) CTC 560 (Cited supra) does not set out the correct legal position and hence it is no more a good law.” (ii) Choudhary Sahu Vs. State of Bihar [ 1982 (1) SCC 232 ], wherein in paragraphs 12 and 13, it has been held as follows: "12. The object of this rule is to avoid contradictory and inconsistent decisions on the same questions in the same suit. As the power under this rule is in derogation of the general principle that a party cannot avoid a decree against him without filing an appeal or cross-objection, it must be exercised with care and caution. The object of this rule is to avoid contradictory and inconsistent decisions on the same questions in the same suit. As the power under this rule is in derogation of the general principle that a party cannot avoid a decree against him without filing an appeal or cross-objection, it must be exercised with care and caution. The Rule does not confer an unrestricted right to re-open decrees which have become final merely because the Appellate Court does not agree with the opinion of the court appealed from. 13. Ordinarily, the power conferred by this Rule will be confined to those cases where as a result of interference in favour of the appellant further interference with the decree of the lower court is rendered necessary in order to adjust the rights of the parties according to justice, equity and good conscience. While exercising the power under this Rule the Court should not lose sight of the other provisions of the Code itself nor the provisions of other laws, viz., the Law of the Limitation or the Law of Court Fees etc.” 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents have proved the negligence on the part of R.W.1, the driver of the bus. He also contended that the Tribunal, ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- p.m. based on the evidence of P.W.3, the owner of the Boat and awarded more compensation. 12. In support of his submission, he relied on the following Judgments: (i) Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others [2013 (3) CTC 883], wherein in paragraph 11, it has been held as follows: "11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2012 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing Future Prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years." (ii) Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Managing Director, Chennai -2 Vs. N.Rajendran and others [2014 (3) TLNJ 101 (Civil)], wherein in paragraph 5, it has been held as follows: "5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation would contend that the award is excessive, we find that at the time of accident, the deceased was 24 years of age and he was a Software Engineer, working in Tata Consultancy Services. On the evidence adduced, the Tribunal found that the deceased was working with one company called 'City Group Global Service Ltd' which was changed into Taata Consultancy Services in the year 2009 itself. Moreover, we find that the claimants had stated that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.40,000/- per month. But the same was not substantiated by them. Therefore, after the evidence of PW-3, a co-employee, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.26,000/-. In fact, on the basis of the chief-examination and the cross-examination only, the Tribunal had determined the income of the deceased at Rs.26,000/- per month. Therefore, we are not inclined to alter the same as requested by the learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation. Besides that, we find that the multiplier ought not to have been taken as 13 as decided by the Tribunal. In fact, while determining the multiplier, the Tribunal misconceived and misdirected itself and taken the multiplier as 13, based on the age of the parents of the deceased. Whereas, it is a trite law that the multiplier should be determined based on the age of the deceased only and not on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased. Whereas, it is a trite law that the multiplier should be determined based on the age of the deceased only and not on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased. Therefore, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal needs to be changed, on the basis of the age of the deceased. If that be so, the multiplier should be taken as 18 instead of 13, as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 24. Besides that, 50% future prospects have not been considered by the Tribunal while determining the compensation. In fact, the deceased was a Software Engineer and had bright future prospects in the company where he was working. Besides that, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that 20% income tax deductions should also have been made.” (iii) Kalpanaraj and others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation [2014 (5) SCALE 479], wherein in paragraph 9, it has been held as follows: "9. As per the Income Tax return of the financial year 1994-1995 produced on record, the deceased was earning Rs.88,660/- per annum or Rs.7330/- per month. Further, the deceased being 46 years of age at the time of death, he is entitled to 30% increase in the future prospects of income as per the legal principle laid down by this Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. [ 2012 (6) SCC 421 ]" 13. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the arguments put forth by them and perused the materials on record. 14. The points for consideration in this appeal are, (i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver [R.W.1] of the bus belonging to the appellant?; and (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? 15. Point No.i: The respondents have examined P.W.2-Joseph Mani, who travelled along with the deceased. P.W.2 has stated that he and the deceased wanted to get down from the bus at Matha Kovil Bus Stop, the driver did not stop the bus at Matha Kovil Bus Stop, but stopped the bus after the said bus stop. Three persons, who travelled along with the deceased, got down from the bus. The deceased was getting down as fourth passenger. Three persons, who travelled along with the deceased, got down from the bus. The deceased was getting down as fourth passenger. Before, he could get down, R.W.1, the driver of the bus suddenly took the bus and therefore, the deceased fell down and the back wheel of the bus ran over on his head and he died on the spot. One Chandrasekaran, who got down just before the deceased, gave a complaint to the police. P.W.2 signed in the said complaint as witness. The First Information Report was registered based on the said complaint and marked as Ex.P1. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that non-examination of said Chandrasekaran, who gave complaint to the police, is fatal to the claim of the respondents and the Tribunal ought not to have relied on the FIR, is not acceptable. The person, who signed in the complaint, was examined as P.W.2. He was also an eye-witness. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly accepted the evidence of P.W.2 and rejected the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the bus. I do not find any infirmity in the said order. Therefore, Point No.i is answered that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. 16. Point No.ii: The respondents claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. as Fisherman and he was aged about 32 years at the time of accident. They examined the owner of the Boat as P.W.3. He had stated that the deceased was working as Fisherman and was paid Rs.4,000/- p.m. Before the Tribunal, Ex.P4-Salary Certificate was produced. It shows that the deceased was paid Rs.4,000/- as monthly salary. The Tribunal erred in holding that no document was produced to substantiate the claim that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. Therefore, the Tribunal fixing the notional income at Rs.3,000/- p.m., has to be set aside and the monthly income of the deceased has to be accepted as Rs.4,000/- p.m. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the Judgments referred to him, has contended that the income of the deceased has to be enhanced by 50% considering his young age. 18. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in all cases, this Court has no power to enhance the compensation without any appeal or cross objection. 19. 18. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in all cases, this Court has no power to enhance the compensation without any appeal or cross objection. 19. From the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is seen that the power of Court under Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. is a discretionary power and has to be exercised judiciously with care and caution and only in rare cases. In case of claims for compensation, it is the duty of the Court to see that the claimants get just and proper compensation. The compensation should not be too meagre and it should not be excessive. Applying well settled principles of law, I am of the opinion, this is a a fit case to invoke Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. to enhance compensation. 20. In view of the Judgment reported in 2013 (3) CTC 883 (supra), I am inclined to enhance the monthly income of the deceased by 50%, as the deceased was only 32 years at the time of accident. For arriving at loss of income to the respondents, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.6,000/- p.m. Accordingly, after fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m., the annual loss of income would come to Rs.72,000/- [Rs.6,0000 x 12] and after deducting 1/3 amount towards personal and living expenses, the income would be Rs.48,000/- [Rs.72,000/- - Rs.24,000/-] and applying multiplier 16 as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC)], the loss of income would come to Rs.7,68,000/- [Rs.48,000/- x 16] and accordingly, the loss of income is fixed at Rs.7,68,000/-. 21. The Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is too meagre. The first respondent has lost her husband at the young age of 28 years. Therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is granted to her for loss of consortium. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the second respondent. It is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- each to the respondents 2 and 3. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 22. Therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is granted to her for loss of consortium. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the second respondent. It is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- each to the respondents 2 and 3. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 22. 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 or modified or granted 1 Loss of Income 4,32,000 7,68,000 enhanced by Rs.3,36,000 2 Loss of consortium 15,000 50,000 enhanced by Rs.35,000 3 Funeral expenses 3,000 3,000 confirmed 4 Loss of Love and affection to the respondents 2 & 3 [each Rs.50,000/-] 10,000 1,00,000 enhanced by Rs.90,000 5 Loss of Expectation of life 10,000 10,000 confirmed Total 4,70,000 9,31,000 enhanced by Rs.4,61,000 23. For the reasons aforesaid, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Appellant is disposed of and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.9,31,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs thirty one thousand only), as total compensation. The appellant is directed to deposit the said amount with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition on Rs.4,70,000/- and on the enhanced amount from the date of this order till the date of deposit, less the amount already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the first respondent would be entitled to Rs.4,56,000/- and the second respondent would be entitled to Rs.3,50,000/- and the third respondent would be entitled to Rs.1,25,000/- with respective proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn.The Tribunal shall deposit the share of second respondent, who is minor claimant, in a Fixed Deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks, which shall be renewed periodically till he attains majority. The first respondent – mother of the minor is permitted to withdraw interest on the share of her minor child, viz., the second respondent herein, once in three months from the bank directly.No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.