JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Heard. 2. Present appeal from order has been filed against the judgment and award dated 26.05.2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, whereby the learned tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2009 at about 7:45 AM, son of the claimants/respondents Pradeep (deceased) was returning back from Hexa Company to his home through his bicycle. When he reached near Kishanpur, the roadways bus bearing registration no. UP-11T-3194 running from Roorkee to Chutmalpur, which was driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the bicycle of the Pradeep (deceased) wherein he received serious injuries and died on the spot. Present respondents/claimants are the parents of the deceased and were totally dependent upon the deceased for their livelihood. It is alleged that deceased was the daily wages worker and earned Rs. 3,300/- per month. However, there is no proof of the said income. 4. In the circumstances, the tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased Rs. 24,000/- per annum and applied multiplier of 12 and consequently calculated the income by applying Rs. 24,000×12 which become 2,88,000/- and also granted funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000/- and consortium of Rs. 2,500/-. Adding the aforesaid, total amount of Rs. 2,92,500/- with 7% per annum interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants/respondents. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned tribunal has wrongly used the multiplier as 12 which is on the higher side and also fixed the rate of interest as 7% per annum. Since, the age of the claimant/respondent at the time of the accident was 23 years, therefore, as per the table given in the Act, the multiplier of 17% is to be used but instead of applying multiplier of 17%, the learned tribunal has only applied multiplier of 15% which is on the lower side. The learned tribunal has awarded interest @ of 7% per annum which is also not on a higher side. 6. In view of the this Court, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has not applied the correct multiplier for the purpose of calculation of the amount of compensation and also failed to consider the future loss to the claimant. The learned tribunal has awarded interest @ of 7% per annum which is also not on a higher side. 6. In view of the this Court, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has not applied the correct multiplier for the purpose of calculation of the amount of compensation and also failed to consider the future loss to the claimant. Since, the appeal has not been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to enhance the amount of compensation on the settled proposition of law that the appellant could not be reduced to the position worse than in what they would have been if they had not appealed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash and others vs. Divisional Manager and another reported in (2011) 14 SCC 639 has held as follows:- “6. We are of the view that High Court committed an error in ignoring the contention of the claimants. It is true that the claimants had not challenged the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had failed to take note of future prospects and add 30% to the annual income of the deceased. But the claimants were not aggrieved by Rs.23,134/- being taken as the monthly income. There was therefore no need for them to challenge the award of the Tribunal. But where in an appeal filed by the owner/insurer, if the High Court proposes to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants can certainly defend the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by pointing out other errors or omissions in the award, which if taken note of, would show that there was no need to reduce the amount awarded as compensation. Therefore, in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the appellant can certainly put forth a contention that if 30% is to be deducted from the income for whatsoever reason, 30% should also be added towards future prospects, so that the compensation awarded is not reduced. The fact that claimants did not independently challenge the award will not therefore come in the way of their defending the compensation awarded, on other grounds. It would only mean that in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the claimants will not be entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation by urging any new ground, in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objections. 7. It would only mean that in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the claimants will not be entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation by urging any new ground, in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objections. 7. This principle also flows from Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enables an appellate court to pass any order which ought to have been passed by the trial court and to make such further or other order as the case may require, even if the respondent had not filed any appeal or cross-objections. This power is entrusted to the appellate court to enable it to do complete justice between the parties. Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code can however be pressed into service to make the award more effective or maintain the award on other grounds or to make the other parties to litigation to share the benefits or the liability, but cannot be invoked to get a larger or higher relief. For example, where the claimants seeks compensation against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle and the Tribunal makes the award only against the owner, on an appeal by the owner challenging the quantum, the appellate court can make the insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, along with the owner, even though the claimants had not challenged the non-grant of relief against the insurer. Be that as it may. 8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation". 7. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation". 7. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that the appeal lacks merits and is hereby dismissed. Let the statutory amount deposited in the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned for being paid to the claimant. 8. No order as to costs.