JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Shri Akhter Abbas, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This First Appeal From Order has emanated from the judgment and award dated 25.09.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (E.C.Act), Lucknow in Claim Petition No.295/2005, Mohd. Kasim Faruki and others Versus U.P. State Road Transport Corporation awarding a sum of Rs.1,64,500/- together with 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition. 3. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 17.02.2003 at about 9.45 in the morning Roadways Bus No.UP-40C-0902 was coming out of the bus stand at Kaiserbagh Bus Stand, Lucknow and its conductor was calling the passengers for Bahraich. The brother of deceased Km. Bushra @ Muwashisra raised voice to stop the bus on which the bus stopped. While the deceased was climbing on the bus, the driver moved the bus forward with jerks, therefore the deceased came under the rear wheels of the bus. The deceased suffered serious injuries. She was immediately admitted in Blarampur Hospital, Lucknow where she died after 8 hours. Therefore the claim petition was filed claiming compensation claiming therein that the deceased was doing the work of stitching of dress of school children. 4. The claim petition was contested by the appellant alleging therein that no accident had taken place from the bus in question. However, the Roadways Bus No.UP-40C-0902 i.e. the bus in question had gone to Bahraich from Lucknow at about 10 in the morning and reached Bahraich at about 1 p.m. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties four issues were framed. After evidence the claim petition has been partly allowed and an amount of Rs.1,64,500/- has been awarded as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to be paid to the claimants-respondents as per apportionment given in the judgment. 6. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that neither any accident had occurred with the bus of the appellant nor any negligence was found on the part of the driver of the bus in question. The bus was neither challaned by the police nor stopped by the public on the place of accident, therefore the occurrence of accident was not proved. The bus was neither challaned by the police nor stopped by the public on the place of accident, therefore the occurrence of accident was not proved. But the learned Tribunal discarding the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant has wrongly and illegally allowed the claim petition without any cogent reason. He accordingly prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and award and allowing the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the accident was proved by the claimant-respondents by adducing cogent evidence and the evidence filed by the appellant in regard to the accident has rightly been discarded by the learned Tribunal as it is not believable. 8. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded just compensation therefore the same is liable to be enhanced. The deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident on 17.02.2003, therefore, the multiplier of 18 in place of 16 should have been applied. The respondents are also entitled for the future prospects and enhancement of the amounts towards the conventional heads. He had also submitted that the notional income of the deceased should have been assessed as Rs.3,000/-per month in place of Rs.1500/-per month as the deceased was doing the work of stitching of School dress. He submitted that though the respondents could not file any appeal or cross objection for enhancement but this court while hearing the appeal of the appellant can enhance the amount of compensation in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Khimshanker Trivedi and others Versus Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others; 2015 (1) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.). 9. In reply to the plea of enhancement of the respondents learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the respondents have not filed any appeal or cross objection for enhancement and the present appeal has been filed only challenging alleged occurrence of accident, therefore this court may not enhance the compensation. If the amount of compensation is enhanced without any appeal or cross objection by the claimant-respondents, the filing of appeal challenging the occurrence of alleged accident would put the appellant in loss because on the one hand his claim that the accident has not occurred from the bus in question is not accepted and on the other hand the amount of compensation, which has been accepted by the respondents, is enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellant in this regard has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash and others Versus The Divisional Manager and another (Civil Appeal No.6110 of 2011); 2011 (7) SCC 6. Lastly the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that if the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents in regard to the enhancement is accepted then the deduction of 1/2 is liable to be made in place of 1/3rd as the deceased was bachelor at the time of death and only the mother could have been treated as dependent. 10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The deceased Km.Bushra @ Muwashisra had died in an accident on 17.02.2003 at about 9.45 a.m. in the morning by Roadways Bus No.UP-40C-0902 as the driver of the bus had started the bus with jerks while the deceased was climbing on the bus. The deceased had suffered serious injuries, therefore, she was admitted in Balrampur Hospital where she had died after 8 hours of the accident. The accident was proved by the P.W.1 and P.W.2 examined on behalf of the claimant/respondents. The appellant could not ellicit anything in the cross examination which could create any doubt about the testimony of the witnesses and the accident. 12. Perusal of the record also indicates that the First Information Report vide case Crime No.73 of 2003 under Section 279/304-A IPC was lodged on 17.02.2003 i.e. on the same day at 6.10 in the evening at Police Station Wazirganj Sadar, District Lucknow. After investigation the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the bus in question on 27.02.2003 on which the cognizance was taken by the court concerned. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dulcina Fernandes & Others Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Another; (2013) 10 SCC 646 has examined the situation where the evidence of eyewitness was discarded by the tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that it can not be overlooked that upon investigation of the case, registered against respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. 13. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that it can not be overlooked that upon investigation of the case, registered against respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. 13. The learned Tribunal has also considering the evidence on record has recorded a categorical finding that the accident had occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of bus no.UP-40C-0902. The deceased had died on account of the serious injuries suffered in the accident. On due consideration of the submissions and evidence on record this court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in regard to the accident by the bus of the appellant and does not find any illegality or error in it. The appeal is misconceived and lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Adverting to the plea of enhancement of compensation raised by learned counsel for the respondents, admittedly the claimant-respondents have not filed any appeal or cross objection for enhancement of compensation because it appears that the claimant-respondents were satisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal as per law prevalent at the relevant time, while they had filed a caveat. This appeal has been filed challenging only the findings of the Tribunal recorded in regard to the accident on the ground that the accident had not occurred by the bus in question and the amount of compensation has not been challenged. Therefore, this court is of the view that the appellant cannot be put to a loss by dismissing the appeal and enhancing the compensation which would amount to put a premium on non action of the claimant-respondents when they were satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash and others Versus The Divisional Manager and another (Supra) has held 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. The Apex Court has also held that the Provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to get a larger or higher relief and the High Court cannot increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer. The Apex Court has also held that the Provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to get a larger or higher relief and the High Court cannot increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer. However the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the respondents-claimants can defend the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal on other grounds. The relevant paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 are extracted below:- "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. 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. 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." 16. 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." 16. So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents in the case of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others Versus Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others (Supra) is concerned, in the said case the Hon'ble Apex court has enhanced the compensation exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which cannot be done by this court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.M. Singh Versus H.P. Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya & others; (1999) 9 SCC 40 , has held that power to do complete justice is conferred on it and the High Court does not have such powers. 17. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 18. The lower Court record and the amount deposited before this court, if any, shall be remitted to the concerned tribunal.