Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection have been filed, against the Fair and Decreetal order, dated 15.07.1992, made in M.C.O.P.No.595 of 1991, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [IV Additional Subordinate Judge], Madurai. 2. The appellant in C.M.A.No.1190 of 1992 is the Insurance Company and second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.595 of 1991, filed by the respondents 1 to 7. The eighth respondent is the owner of the vehicle. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order, dated 15.07.1992, made in M.C.O.P.No.595 of 1991, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [IV Additional Subordinate Judge], Madurai, awarding a sum of Rs.45,000/-, as compensation to the respondents 1 to 7. The respondents 1 to 7 also filed Cross Objection (MD) No.37 of 2012, for enhancement of compensation. 3. Facts of the case: According to the respondents 1 to 7, on 26.04.1991, at 11.30 p.m., one Pitchai Rowther was standing on the extreme southern side of the East-West Tamil Sangam Road at Madurai. At that time, an Auto-rickshaw, bearing Registration No.TN-59-A-8691, belonging to the eighth respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the said Pitchai Rowther. Due to the said impact, the said Pitchai Rowther sustained severe injuries and was taken to hospital, for treatment. He died on 27.04.1991, in spite of intensive treatment given at Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai. The deceased was carrying on business of Cycle Shop by letting cycles on hire basis and repairing cycles. The respondents 1 to 7 claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. He was aged about 55 years at the time of accident. Therefore, they claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. 4. The appellant denied all the allegations made by the respondents 1 to 7. The appellant has stated that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the eighth respondent and it was only due to negligence of the deceased. The appellant denied their liability, on the ground that the driver of the eighth respondent did not possess any valid driving licence at the time of accident. 5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the first respondent-P.Maharban Bivi was examined as P.W.1 and the fifth respondent-K.P.Akbar was examined as P.W.2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. 5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the first respondent-P.Maharban Bivi was examined as P.W.1 and the fifth respondent-K.P.Akbar was examined as P.W.2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. On behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, one P.Chandrasekaran was examined as R.W.1 and Ramasamy was examined as R.W.2 and two documents were marked, as Exs.R1 and R2. 6. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the eighth respondent. The Tribunal also held that the appellant did not prove that the driver of the eighth respondent did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. Based on these findings, the Tribunal, by order, dated 15.07.1992, awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/-, as compensation. 7. Against the said order, dated 15.07.1992, the appellant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal the and respondents 1 to 7 have filed the Cross Objection. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal did not properly appreciate the facts of the case and ordered awarding compensation, which is contrary to the facts and law. The respondents 1 to 7 failed to prove that the driver of the vehicle had valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7/Cross Objectors contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of life. He further contended that the Tribunal failed to consider Exs.P1 to P4 and erred in holding the victim's age as sixty years at the time of accident and awarded very meager amount as compensation and therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 11. The issues to be decided in the appeal and the Cross Objection are, (i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the eighth respondent?; (ii) Whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation along with the eighth respondent?; and (iii) Whether the respondents 1 to 7 are entitled to enhancement of compensation? 12. Point Nos. 12. Point Nos. I and II:- Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the first respondent was examined as P.W.1 and the fifth respondent was examined as P.W.2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. They have spoken as to how the accident had occurred and also has stated that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the eighth respondent. The appellant did not let in any contra evidence. The Tribunal considering the evidence let in by the parties and the place, where the accident took place, came to the conclusion that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the eighth respondent. The Tribunal has given cogent and valid reasons for this conclusion. 13. Secondly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation, on the ground that the driver of the eighth respondent did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. They have not substantiated this contention by any acceptable evidence. On the other hand, the appellant had marked a copy of the policy as Ex.P1, submitted by the eighth respondent. For issue of Policy, the eighth respondent has stated that there is valid licence. The appellant did not dispute the same and did not make any verification in this regard. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that he is challenging the liability of the appellant to pay compensation, not on the quantum of compensation and therefore, the Cross Objection is not maintainable. In the present case, I am not deciding the question whether the Cross Objection is maintainable, when the quantum of compensation is not challenged, but only liability to pay compensation, is challenged. This Court, even without any Cross Objection or Appeal by the claimant, has power to enhance the compensation, to award just and proper compensation. D.W.2, the Junior Assistant, working in the Regional Office, has stated that only if correct information is furnished, particulars can be furnished by them. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the driver of the eighth respondent did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident, is not correct. For the above reasons, the finding of the Tribunal are confirmed and both the points are answered accordingly. 14. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the driver of the eighth respondent did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident, is not correct. For the above reasons, the finding of the Tribunal are confirmed and both the points are answered accordingly. 14. Point No.III:- The deceased was running a Cycle Shop, repairing cycles and by letting cycles on hire basis. According to the respondents 1 to 7, the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. But, they have not produced any evidence to substantiate the same. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.750/- per month after deducting 1/3rd, held that the deceased would have contributed Rs.500/- per month towards maintenance of family. This amount is too meagre. The calculation and reason given by the Tribunal is not proper. It is well settled that when quantum is not proved by the claimant, the reasonable amounts must be fixed by the Court to grant just and proper compensation. The income is usually fixed between Rs.3,000/- and Rs.6,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the deceased was running a cycle shop, I am inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month and deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and fix Rs.750/- as his contribution to manage the family. I confirm the conclusion of the Tribunal, age of the deceased was 60 years and loss of income income for the period of 10 years. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 7 are entitled to compensation of Rs.750/- x 12 x 10 = Rs.90,000/- towards loss of income. The amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded for loss of consortium is too meagre. Similarly, the amount of Rs.2,000/- towards loss of love affection is also too meagre. Therefore, I enhance the compensation for loss of consortium to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.2,000/- and loss of love affection to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.2,000/-. The amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards future loss of income is sustained. The rate of interest awarded @ 12% p.a. on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal viz., Rs.45,000/-, is also sustained. Therefore, I enhance the compensation for loss of consortium to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.2,000/- and loss of love affection to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.2,000/-. The amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards future loss of income is sustained. The rate of interest awarded @ 12% p.a. on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal viz., Rs.45,000/-, is also sustained. The appellant is directed to deposit Rs.45,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and also a sum of Rs.76,000/-, being the enhanced compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. 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. On such deposit being made, the first respondent would be entitled to Rs.25,000/- and the respondents 2 to 7 would be entitled to Rs.16,000/- each with respective proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn. 15. I have enhanced the compensation as indicated above. In the result, both the civil miscellaneous appeal and cross objection are disposed of accordingly. No costs. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this Judgment to the respondents 1 to 7.