JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J. - This appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the 11nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur in Misc. (A) Case No. 362 of 1998 (SN). 2.Short background involved in this case is that the appellant/claimants preferred a claim before the Tribunal on the pleading that the husband of the appellant No.1 while coming in a Commander Jeep bearing registration No. OR 09 A/4081 on. 3.06.1998 at about 1 P.M. near Dhenkikot the jeep had a head on collision with a bus bearing Registration No. OR-J-7417, which was coming from the opposite side. Both the vehicles were covered under valid Insurance Policy. The deceased was an employee of the SAIL working in Rourkela Steel Plant and was getting salary of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand) per month. On the premises of sustaining loss on account f their sole bread earner’s death in a vehicular accident, the claimants/appellants made a claim of Rs. 8,50,000/- (Rupees Eight lakshs fifty thousand) as whole compensation. 3.Owner of both the vehicles did not appear. Therefore, they were all set ex-parte. The Insurance Companies filed their respective written statements. The National Insurance Company Ltd. indicated in the written statement that there is no intimation about the accident to it by the owner. The Insurance Policy was issued in favour of the owner; of the vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-J-7417. The owner of the bus filed the original policy along with DL of the driver. In absence of intimation about the accident to the Company, liability on National Insurance Company cannot be fixed. Insurance Company further, contended that since the deceased was an employee of the Rourkela Steel Plant, on his death, the family members are entitled to monthly salary till the date of retirement of the deceased following Family Welfare Benefit Scheme and hence they are not entitled to any compensation. Insurance Company further, contended that since the deceased was an employee of the Rourkela Steel Plant, on his death, the family members are entitled to monthly salary till the date of retirement of the deceased following Family Welfare Benefit Scheme and hence they are not entitled to any compensation. Similarly, the Oriental Insurance Company, the insurer of the Jeep on its appearance filed a written statement contending therein that the driver of the Jeep should produce the DL and the same has even not been seized by the Police and in absence of which no liability can be fixed on the Oriental Insurance Company, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles and claimed that no liability can be fixed on the Oriental Insurance Company. Considering the entire aspect, the IInd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal: Northern Division : Sambalpur awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- in favour of applicants and which amount was to be paid by both the Insurance Company with 9% interest per annum. 4.In assailing the aforesaid judgment and award to compensation, Mr. Udgata, learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that there is no denial to the fact that the deceased was an employee of the Rourkela Steel Plant and in view of availability of salary slip of the deceased, income tax deduction paper as well as the oral evidence with regard to the receipt of gratuity being an employee of a public sector company, the finding of the Tribunal determining the salary of the deceased @ Rs. 1,200/- (Rupees Twelve hundred) per month is fully erroneous and being contrary to the materials available on record, Mr. Udgata, learned counsel also contended that the award to compensation should be interfered with and ought to be increased. 5.In their opposition, on their appearance learned counsel for the Insurance Companies contended that the documents such as salary slip, Income tax deduction paper and the oral evidence with regard to the receipt of gratuity by the legal heirs of the deceased not being the concrete proof of income of the deceased, there is no wrong committed by the Tribunal in determining the income of the deceased @ Rs. 1,200/- (Rupees Twelve hundred) per month and therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any wrong in coming to such conclusion and further contended that there is no illegality in the findings as well as the direction part in the impugned judgment. From perusal of the supporting documents presented by both the sides as well as the documents available in the LCR, this Court finds that there is no denial to the factum of accident and also finds failure on the part of the Insurance Companies to destabilize the claim of the appellants with regard to reason of death of the deceased. The materials also disclose that there is no dispute with regard to the valid Insurance involving both the vehicles. The Insurance Companies even though raised their pleading on their doubt regarding validity of the license concerning both the vehicles but both the Insurance Companies as appears have chosen not to lead any evidence in this regard. Nor there is even any endeavour for bringing their stand proved through the cross examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants/appellants. There is even no witness on behalf of both the Insurance Companies. 6.On perusal of the LCR, this Court finds that the claimants established their claim that the deceased died on account of rash & negligent driving of the driver of the bus. This Court finds from the MVI report at Ext. 3, where the MVI has a clear opinion that both the drivers might have tried to pass each other in negligent manner, hence the accident might have taken place due to negligent of both the drivers. Further from perusal of the salary slip issued in favour of the deceased at Ex. 5, it appears that the gross earning of the deceased was Rs. 18,73,122/- and after deduction, the net pay becomes Rs. 13,546/-. The gross salary of the deceased in the financial year 1994-1995 as appears from the Ext. 6, the income tax return of the deceased for the assessment year 1995-96 is at Rs. 18,920.60. The documents marked as Exts. 5 & 6 are very vital documents and cannot be ignored. In view of specific averments and counter allegations, this Court had also the occasion to go through the evidence of the claimants as available in the LCR. From the records in the cross-examination part of the P.W. NO. 18,920.60. The documents marked as Exts. 5 & 6 are very vital documents and cannot be ignored. In view of specific averments and counter allegations, this Court had also the occasion to go through the evidence of the claimants as available in the LCR. From the records in the cross-examination part of the P.W. NO. 1, it clearly appears that the family members of the deceased have not only said that they are not entitled to any benefit from the compensation scheme of the Rourkela Steel Plant, as it is not applicable to the wife for her husband not being a member of such scheme, but there is also a specific statement by the P.W. No. 1 that she has received gratuity from Rourkela Steel Plant on the death of her husband being an employee of the Rourkela Steel Plant. 7.Considering the materials available in Exts. 5 & 6 and the evidence of the P.W. No. 1, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ignoring all these documents held the salary of the deceased @ Rs. 1,200/- (Rupees Twelve hundred) per month at the time of his death, is not only at a very lower side remained also contrary to concrete materials available on record. 8. Looking the peculiar feature involved in the case at hand that the claimants have made a claim of Rs. 8,50,000/- and in absence of a cross objection, can this Court grant just compensation i.e. higher than the claim made in the claim application. In deciding a case in the matter of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC V. Mahadeva Shetty and another as reported in (2003) 7 SCC 197 at para 15, the Apex Court held as follows: “Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non pecuniary damages are those which are capable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate tow concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate tow concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.” In deciding a case in the matter of Govind Yadav V. The New India Insurance Company Limited as reported in (2011) 10 SCC 683 , The Apex Court held as follows: “In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork. Some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards.” In deciding a case in the matter of Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences V. Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors. As reported in (2009) 6 SCC I, while enhancing compensation awarded by National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission the Bench made the following observation. “We must emphasise that the Court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the Court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The “adequate compensation” that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned. The “adequate compensation” that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family greater distress vis-à-vis a family in a case of death, in the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution ensures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity.” In an another case in between Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and Others Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and Others as reported in 2015 (1) T.A.C. 673 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court dealing a question as to can there by grant of compensation higher than the compensatin claimed. In paragraph No. 13, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,24,000/- as against the same, claimants have not filed any appeal. As against the award passed by the Tribunal when the claimants have not filed any appeal, the question arises whether the income of the deceased could be increased and compensation could be enhanced. In terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Courts/Tribunals are to pass awards determining the amount of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by the legal standards. The power of the Courts in awarding reasonable compensation was emphasized by this Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors., (2003) 2. S.C.C. 274 : 2003 (1) T.A.C. 598 and Ningamma & Anr. V. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (2009) 13 S.C.C. 710 . As against the award passed by the Tribunal even though the claimants have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of Courts/Tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, it is appropriate to increase the compensation.” Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Northern India Transports’ Insurance Co. As against the award passed by the Tribunal even though the claimants have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of Courts/Tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, it is appropriate to increase the compensation.” Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Northern India Transports’ Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in 1971 ACJ 206 (SC) held that pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture. The general principle should be the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand, the loss to the claimants of future pecuniary benefits and on the other hand any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source come to them by reason of death. Object is to mitigate hardship that has caused to the legal representatives due to sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. In Dhangir vrs. Madan Mohan as reported in AIR 1988 SC 54 and M.D. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vrs. Kalavathi as reported in 1998(1) A.C.J. 151, it is held that the Court has got power to enhance the compensation even though the claimants had not filed the cross objection against the award seeking for higher compensation if the Court finds the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not just and adequate. In view of catena of decisions, it has become clear that the appellate Court can enhance the compensation beyond claim in a fit case. Consequently, this Court feels it appropriate to grant higher compensation i.e. just compensation but that should be subject to realization of additional Court fee on the excess compensation. 9.Thus, this Court while interfering in the impugned judgment/award of compensation. Allows the Misc. Appeal and holding the net payoff the deceased being Rs. 13,546/- in the month of June 1998 (Ext. 5). Taking into consideration that the accident had taken place on 3.06.1998 and further considering that the age of the deceased at the time of death being 45 years. Applies 15 multipliers. The appellants would be entitled to Rs. 13,546/- X 12X15= 24,38,280/- leaving 20% towards family contribution comes to Rs. 24.38,280/- - 4,87,656=19,50,624/-. This apart the appellants will also be entitled to a sum of Rs. Applies 15 multipliers. The appellants would be entitled to Rs. 13,546/- X 12X15= 24,38,280/- leaving 20% towards family contribution comes to Rs. 24.38,280/- - 4,87,656=19,50,624/-. This apart the appellants will also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium including the future loss and the whole compensation will also carry interest @ 6% from the date of application till the date of the impugned judgment and @ 7.5% from 7.07.2001 till the date of release of the amount along with interest. The total compensation including interest be calculated within a period of two weeks hence and after deduction the amounts already paid, the balance amount be deposited before the IInd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal: Northern Division: Sambalpur within a period of four weeks thereafter for being released in favour of the appellants on proper identification. Failing deposit of such amount as directed hereinabove, within the time stipulated hereinabove, the appellants will also be entitled to interest @ 10% for such default period. 10.The Miscellaneous Appeal succeeds to the extent directed hereinabove. However, there is no order as to cost. M.A. Succeeds to the extent directed.