JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur dt.04.05.2007 rendered in M.V.O.P.No.1231 of 2005 whereby the claimants have been awarded the compensation of Rs.1,79,000/- holding that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay the same with running interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount, with proportionate costs of the petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim petition. 3. The brief case, as pleaded in the claim petition, is as follows: (a) A 45-year-old Lalu Naik-deceased used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by running a hotel at the time of the accident. On 21.10.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased-Lalu Naik was standing on the left side of the road margin near the market, Amaravati Village. At that time, the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 7 TT 6433 owned by the Opponent No.1 in the claim petition and insured with Opponent No.2, had driven the same very rashly and negligently and in a manner endangering human life, and dashed against the deceased-Lalu Naik. As a result, Lalu Naik received injuries, and immediately he was admitted to the Government Hospital, Amaravati, there from shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, and while taking treatment he died. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said offending Auto and based on the FIR lodged by the son of the deceased-Lalu Naik, a case in Crime No.90 of 2005 of Amaravati Police Station under Section 304-A IPC was registered and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused driver for having committed the offence under Sec.304-A IPC. (b) The wife and the son of the deceased-Lalu Naik filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Guntur on account of his death in the said road accident. (c) Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1/owner of the auto did not contest the matter. (b) The wife and the son of the deceased-Lalu Naik filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Guntur on account of his death in the said road accident. (c) Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1/owner of the auto did not contest the matter. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement contending inter alia that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the age and income of the deceased at the time of the accident. It is further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 7 TT 6433. The said offending Auto was not insured with Respondent No.2/Insurance Company at the time of the accident. The amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. (d) Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 7 TT 6433? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so, what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? (e) During the trial, in order to establish their claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were got marked on behalf of the petitioners. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1, B.2, and X.1 were got marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. (f) On appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1, and placing reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.4 and Exs.B.1, B.2, and X.1 i.e., the certified copy of F.I.R, the certified copy of inquest report, the certified copy of Post Mortem Certificate and the certified copy of charge sheet, and Copy of the Insurance Policy, Driving Licence particulars and Driving Licence Extract respectively, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP 7 TT 6433 and passed the impugned award granting compensation of Rs.1,79,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by the 1st and 2nd respondents / Opponents jointly and severally. (g) Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed the instant appeal. 4. (g) Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed the instant appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation against the appellant as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle, and he was having licence to drive Light Motor Non-Transport Vehicle. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that, though the driver was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle, even then the Tribunal has held that it cannot be considered a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation of Rs.1,79,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further argued that the age of the deceased must not be less than 50 years since the age of his son i.e., the 2nd petitioner was shown as 24 years and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. Taking into consideration all the above aspects, the appeal has to be allowed setting aside the award dt.04.05.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the Claimants would submit that Judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal in so far as, adverse to the claimants is concerned, is not tenable and sustainable. The issue involved in the present appeal raised by the Insurance Company is only with regard to the driver not holding a valid driving licence to drive the transport Auto. He further submitted that, as Light Motor Vehicle includes transport vehicles also, the holder of the Light Motor Vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.1,200/- and further applying the multiplier as “15?. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the income of the deceased atleast @ Rs.4,500/- per month; that in similar facts and circumstances, the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in a case Ramachandrappa Vs. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the income of the deceased atleast @ Rs.4,500/- per month; that in similar facts and circumstances, the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in a case Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 ACJ 2436 took into consideration the monthly income of a coolie @ Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of the accident which occurred in the year 2004. But in the present case, as the accident took place in the year 2005, the deceased would have earned more income in 2005 than the income earned in the year 2004. Therefore, the claimants claimed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal had simply taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- per month without any justification. It is further submitted that, by applying the above judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India, the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of Rs.4,500/- in the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased-Lalu Naik. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court has the power to enhance the compensation in the absence of Cross-Objections, by citing the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Komal, MANU/DE/2870/2012, in which the High Court of Delhi enhanced the compensation in the absence of Appeal / Cross-Objections. Further, he would submit that the award amount can be enhanced even though the claimants have not filed any appeal / Cross-Objections. Therefore, the figures applied by the Tribunal were not justified, warranting interference in this appeal by enhancing the compensation. 6. In the light of the above rival arguments, the points for determination in this appeal are: “1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case or requires enhancement? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation under various conventional heads?” 7. 6. In the light of the above rival arguments, the points for determination in this appeal are: “1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case or requires enhancement? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation under various conventional heads?” 7. POINT Nos.1 & 2: A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence had categorically observed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No.8 AP 7 TT 6433 and has answered the same in favour of the claimants and against the respondents/Opponents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 7 TT 6433. 8. Now, the another issue involved in the present appeal is only with regard to the driver not holding a valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle though he was possessing a valid licence for Light Motor Vehicle. At the relevant point of time, the position of law was different, and, therefore, the appeal was admitted (sic). Now, the position of law is well settled by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2017 ACJ 2011 (SC) “46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the postamended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the postamended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of “light motor vehicles? and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act “Transport Vehicle? would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: (i) “Light motor vehicle? as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, “unladen weight? of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. (iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression “transport vehicle? as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle. (iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.” 9. In view of the above, now, the position of law is well settled that no separate licence is required to drive such vehicle as Light Motor Vehicle includes Transport Vehicle also. A holder of the Light Motor Vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of such class including Transport Vehicle. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position as noted above, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company that the driver was not holding a valid licence. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation. 10. In the present case, it is clearly found from the record that the another issue involved in the present appeal is, whether the income of the deceased @ Rs.1,200/- per month accepted by the Tribunal, is fair and just. The learned counsel for the Claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- and it is adverse to the Claimants concerned. The learned counsel for the Claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- and it is adverse to the Claimants concerned. The learned counsel for the Claimants relied upon the decision of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in a case reported in Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (referred supra) wherein it was extracted hereunder. "14: In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.3,000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz., in the year 2004, was Rs.100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. Secondly, the appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It 2 2011(6) ALD, 75 (SC) depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. In the present case, appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.4,500/- per month. In the present case, appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.4,500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the appellant from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs.4,500/-." 11. The learned counsel for the Claimants with reference to the above judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court submits that, even in the present case on hand, the Tribunal had simply taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,200/- per month without any justification, on the ground that there is no convincing evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by running a hotel at the time of the accident. 12. This Court finds considerable force in the contention advanced by the counsel for the Claimants. No reasons were assigned by the Claims Tribunal for adopting monthly income @ Rs.1,200/-. The Claimants cannot be expected to file or produce any income certificate in respect of the earnings of the deceased, who was running a hotel at the time of the accident. Therefore, the monthly income of Rs.1,200/- as taken by the Claims Tribunal is not just or tenable as the same was taken without any valid basis. Applying the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court referred to supra, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, to take the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month to arrive at the loss of dependency. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Claimants are entitled to more compensation than what was claimed in the claim petition. The learned counsel for the Claimants also relied on the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) and contended that the claimants are entitled to the compensation under conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses in terms of the said judgment. 13. On consideration of the material evidence, the contentions advanced by the counsel for the Claimants, the material available on record, and the decisions cited supra, the issue, what would be the just and reasonable compensation, is to be determined. 13. On consideration of the material evidence, the contentions advanced by the counsel for the Claimants, the material available on record, and the decisions cited supra, the issue, what would be the just and reasonable compensation, is to be determined. As opined supra, the Claims Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.1,200/- without any valid basis, in the absence of any other evidence, contrary to the claim made by the Claimants. By applying the principles as observed by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa?s case, there was no reason for the Tribunal to refuse the claim of the claimants and had taken the monthly income @ Rs.1,200/- only. The claim is not so exorbitant nor the same is contrary to any ground realities. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal, without any justification, has restricted the income of the deceased to Rs.1,200/- per month which is not just or reasonable and therefore, committed illegality in taking the said amount for the purpose of arriving at the loss of dependency. As observed by the Hon?ble Supreme Court, the Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation that should appear to be just and proper. 14. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging its liability to pay the compensation. The claimants have not preferred any appeal or cross-objections to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent in nature and even in the absence of cross-appeal/cross-objections by the claimants, Court has the power to enhance the compensation. In the decision reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Komal and others, (MANU/DE/2870/2012) of the High Court of Delhi it is crystal clear that under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC the Appellate Court has the power to enhance the compensation even in the absence of Cross Objections. In the above-referred decision at Para No.12 it is held as follows: “12. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the Court to award such compensation as appears to be just which has been interpreted to mean just in accordance with law and it can be more than the amount claimed by the claimants. In the above-referred decision at Para No.12 it is held as follows: “12. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the Court to award such compensation as appears to be just which has been interpreted to mean just in accordance with law and it can be more than the amount claimed by the claimants. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are clearly a beneficial legislation and hence should be interpreted in a way to enable the Court to assess just compensation. The scope of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the power of the High Court to enhance the award amount in accident cases in the absence of cross- objections has been discussed by the Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, AIR 2003 SC 674 where the Apex Court has held that the Court is required to determine just compensation and there is no other limitation or restriction for awarding such compensation and in appropriate cases wherefrom the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award and would empower the Court to enhance the compensation at the appellate stage even without the injured filing an appeal or cross-objections.” 15. In the another decision reported in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. B.Chithra and others, 2020 ACJ 417 of the High Court of Madras at Para No.20 it was held as follows: “20. Though the appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the negligence aspect, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the same in toto, this Court while confirming the negligence aspect as reached by the Tribunal, re-appreciating the evidence invoking Order 41 Rule 33 CPC and Section 151 CPC and Article 227 of Constitution of India, has enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.17,60,400/-. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent in nature and what is required to be awarded is just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, even in the absence of appeal/cross-appeal by the claimants, this Court has got power and jurisdiction to enhance the compensation, which has been recognized by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh reported in 2004(2) TN MAC 398 (SC). Therefore, in an endeavour to do complete justice, this Court has enhanced the compensation.” 16. Therefore, even in the absence of appeal/cross-appeal by the claimants, this Court has got power and jurisdiction to enhance the compensation, which has been recognized by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh reported in 2004(2) TN MAC 398 (SC). Therefore, in an endeavour to do complete justice, this Court has enhanced the compensation.” 16. In view of the above discussion, the Appellate Court has the power to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in the absence of an appeal or cross-objections filed by the Claimants. 17. This Court, in the light of the facts and circumstances, is inclined to take into consideration, the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- by adopting the above judgment i.e., @ Rs.150/- per day during the relevant period in the year 2005, since there is no other evidence available on record that the deceased was running a hotel and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, for the purpose of arriving at compensation towards loss of dependency, the income of the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month is adopted and thus the annual income of the deceased has arrived at Rs.54,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to his family would be @ Rs.36,000/- per annum. As per the Inquest Report/ Ex.A.2, the age of the deceased is 45 years. The claimants who are illiterates are not supposed to be that much of meticulous to give the wrong age of the deceased. Therefore, the age of the deceased is taken as 45 years. As per the judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 41 to 45 years is “14?. Adopting the same, the total compensation towards loss of dependency has arrived at Rs.5,04,000/- (Rs.36,000 x 14 = Rs.5,04,000/-). 18. Apart from the above, the Claimants are entitled to compensation under conventional heads in terms of the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi?s case referred to supra. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 19. In view of the above discussion, in the instant case, the computation of compensation is made as follows: Loss of dependency Rs.5,04,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 19. In view of the above discussion, in the instant case, the computation of compensation is made as follows: Loss of dependency Rs.5,04,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.5,89,000/- (-) The Claims Tribunal Awarded Rs.1,79,000/- Rs.1,79,000/- Enhanced amount Rs.4,10,000/- 20. As per the decision of the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such an award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation that should appear to be just and proper. The compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, against the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable, and the claimants are entitled to more compensation, as stated supra, though they might not have claimed the same at the time of filing of the claim petition. 21. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,79,000/- to Rs.5,89,000/-. 22. Viewed thus, there is no merit in the present appeal, and the same is hereby dismissed, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,79,000/- to Rs.5,89,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the Respondents 1 to 2 (Opponents 1 and 2) jointly and severally. Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. The Claimants shall pay the requisite Court-fees in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed. The rest of the directions given by the Tribunal with regard to the entitlement of the Claimants in withdrawing the amount shall remain unaltered. The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.