JUDGMENT : (Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the Appellant/ Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai challenging the Award dated 18.01.2006 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-District Judge, Eluru (for short “the Tribunal”), in O.P.No.130 of 2005 granting compensation of Rs.4,31,780/- along with interest @ 9% per annum and with proportionate costs from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the Respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition, jointly and severally, on account of the death of Mungara Prasada Rao in the accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Heard Sri K.Subbarao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 4. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.07.2004 M.Prasadarao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was proceeding from his native place Sriparru to Kaikaluru for purchasing the rice feed for fish along with Veerullu, Saidu Rangababu and Jayamangala Madhusudana Rao. On that day, the deceased purchased the rice feed, loaded into Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 37 V 2787 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). After loading the rice feed, while returning, when they reached outskirts of Lokamudigaruvu near Kumar Industries, at about 15.30 hours the 1st respondent-driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, without blowing horn, unable to control the lorry and dashed against the cement pole which was on the side of the road. As a result, the said lorry fell on the roadside tank. Due to the incident the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Based on the report given by Saidu Rangababu, a case in Crime No.70 of 2004 for the offence under Section 304-A and 338 IPC was registered by Mandavalli Police, Krishna District and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC. Based on the report given by Saidu Rangababu, a case in Crime No.70 of 2004 for the offence under Section 304-A and 338 IPC was registered by Mandavalli Police, Krishna District and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC. (ii) At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years, hale and healthy and he used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month in fish business and used to maintain his family. The wife, son and parents (petitioners 1 to 4) of the deceased filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the death of the deceased in the road accident. (iii) The 1st respondent/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that there was no fault on the part of this respondent in connection with the alleged accident. It was further averred that by the date of the accident, the insurance policy was in force and the claim made against this respondent is liable to be dismissed. (iv) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the date and time of the accident and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. Further, he would submit that the petitioners should prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. Further averred that the petitioners/claimants are put to strict proof of the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased. It was further averred that the deceased and others boarded the offending vehicle unauthorizedly, by violating the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the petition is liable to be dismissed. (v) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 37 V 2787, by its driver-1st respondent? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount against which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? (vi) In order to establish the claim of the petitioners, during trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were got marked on behalf of the petitioners. (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount against which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? (vi) In order to establish the claim of the petitioners, during trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were got marked on behalf of the petitioners. The 1st respondent did not lead any evidence. The employee of the 2nd respondent was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.4 on its behalf. (vii) The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence on record, passed an award for a sum of Rs.4,31,780/- as compensation. The breakup details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, are tabulated hereunder: S.No. Head of Compensation Amount of compensation awarded in Rs. 1 Compensation for Loss of Dependency 4,09,280/- 2 Loss of consortium 20,000/- 3 Funeral expenses 2,500/- Total 4,31,780/- (viii) Aggrieved by the said Award, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited being the appellant, filed the present appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has committed an error in directing the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount to the claimants. He would further submit that the Insurance Company has proved through the documentary evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle is the owner and he violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the cover note and that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and it is a clear case of violation of policy conditions and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and the 5th respondent herein is liable to pay the compensation. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal failed to ascertain the age of the deceased and multiplier applied is in higher side and also awarded higher rate of interest. Further he would submit that having failed to consider the above aspects, the learned Tribunal has committed illegality and awarded compensation to the claimants. Further urged that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper and called for interference of this Court and prays to exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal grossly erred while awarding compensation without following the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal grossly erred while awarding compensation without following the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He would further submit that by the date of the accident, the deceased was doing business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.4,000/- per month in contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236 . Even according to the Minimum Wages Act, during the year 2004, the daily wage of a labourer was at least Rs.150/- and the learned Tribunal has not properly evaluated the monthly income of the deceased and he prays to refix the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month and to award compensation. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation under various conventional heads by following the guidelines prescribed in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). Further, he would submit that many pleas were taken in the written statement by the appellant, but they did not prove the same. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has no force. Further he would submit that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in awarding a meagre amount of compensation. Further, he would submit that the Tribunal has committed an error while passing the award and it needs interference of this Court and prayed to enhance the compensation by modifying the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. Now the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs interference of this Court? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 8. 7. Now the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs interference of this Court? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 8. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed the Issue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 37 V 2787, by its driver-1st respondent, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed in Para No.8 of the Order that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. 9. In the present case, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the 1st respondent is nothing but the owner of the offending vehicle but he drove the vehicle by violating the conditions of the policy and cover note. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Further he contended that due to the alleged accident, two persons died, and two persons sustained injuries, who were gratuitous passengers and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. To answer the above argument, it is relevant to peruse Ex.B.1/Copy of the Insurance Policy. It reveals that the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 37 V 2787 was covered with insurance policy from 30.08.2003 to 29.08.2004 and the accident occurred on 13.07.2004. Therefore, the insurance policy was in force by the date of the accident. With regard to the liability, in Page No.2 of the Policy it was mentioned under (a) legal liability at Column (b) as “to paid driver/cleaner/coolies”. With regard to the limitations as to use: as per Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, driver – any person including the insured. Therefore, the insurance policy was in force by the date of the accident. With regard to the liability, in Page No.2 of the Policy it was mentioned under (a) legal liability at Column (b) as “to paid driver/cleaner/coolies”. With regard to the limitations as to use: as per Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, driver – any person including the insured. In the present case, the 1st respondent was the owner/insured of the offending and he drove the vehicle at the time of the accident provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident. As per Ex.A.4/Copy of Driving Licence, the 1st respondent was having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. As per the Insurance Policy/Ex.B.1, he was entitled to drive the offending vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent/insured cannot drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. On that ground the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability. 10. At the outset, a bare perusal of the document of policy i.e., cover note which was placed on the record of the Tribunal shows that the offending vehicle can carry three passengers. In view of the policy and the cover note, the offending vehicle can carry the coolies as well as the passengers. Therefore, the Policy applies to the deceased persons as well as the injured persons, who were coolies and passengers at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal had observed that the deceased and the injured were not unauthorized passengers at the time of the accident. The Tribunal further observed that the respondents have not filed any trip sheet to show the quality and quantity of the goods carried and in the charge sheet there is nothing to show that they were travelling in the lorry as unauthorized, or fare paid passengers. Further observed that the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability as it has not discharged its burden by producing the trip sheet or any other relevant documents. 11. In view of the findings of the learned Tribunal it is clear that the deceased and the persons, who travelled in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, are not the unauthorized passengers or fare paid passengers, but they are coolies. 11. In view of the findings of the learned Tribunal it is clear that the deceased and the persons, who travelled in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, are not the unauthorized passengers or fare paid passengers, but they are coolies. P.W.2 had categorically stated in his evidence that the deceased was carrying bamboos in the offending vehicle and all the persons paid Rs.1,800/- for transportation charges and he paid Rs.700/- and four persons sat on the top of the bamboo sticks and two were setting in the cabin of the offending vehicle. In view of the above evidence all of them travelled in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and they are entitled to claim compensation against the respondents. The Insurance Policy and the cover note are supporting their contention and the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Travancore Devaswom Board Vs. Thanath International, (2004) 13 SCC 44 and V.Renganathan and another Vs. Branch Manager, United Indian Insurance Company Limited and another, 2023 ACJ 623 . Having regard to the facts of the case and the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the decisions referred to supra, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, are not supporting their contention. A given set of facts are different from the facts of the above cases. The principle of “pay and recovery” does not apply to the present set of facts as the insured was having a valid policy to carry the passengers and coolies and he obtained comprehensive policy with unlimited passengers. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company have no force. 13. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In the present case, there was no clarity in respect to the principles on which the compensation could be awarded by following Apex Court’s judgments. 14. The learned Tribunal committed an error while assessing the income of the deceased during the year 2004. Even if he is a labourer/coolie, at least he may get Rs.150/- per day. In the present case, there was no clarity in respect to the principles on which the compensation could be awarded by following Apex Court’s judgments. 14. The learned Tribunal committed an error while assessing the income of the deceased during the year 2004. Even if he is a labourer/coolie, at least he may get Rs.150/- per day. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the deceased-M.Prasada Rao can be treated as a labourer/coolie. Though the claimants pleaded in the petition that the deceased was doing fish business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and produced Ex.A.6/copy of the letter issued by Venkata Ramana Fishing Company, to substantiate the said plea, they have not examined any witness to prove the income of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Tribunal disbelieved Ex.A.6 and assessed the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and has taken the income @ Rs.4,000/- per month in contrary to the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in Ramachandrappa case (supra) wherein, at Para Nos.13 & 15, it was held as follows: “13. 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.4500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.3000/- 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.3000/- 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. 14……………. 15. 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.4500/- per month. 14……………. 15. 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.4500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bonafide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the appellant from Rs.4500/- to Rs.3000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs.4500/-” 15. Following the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa’s case (supra), the notional income of the labourer/coolie can be taken @ Rs.4,500/- per month, on the ground that the wages of a labourer during the relevant period in the year 2004 were in between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month. The above said principle applies to the present case since the accident occurred in the year 2004 and the deceased can be treated as a labour/coolie, and his monthly income can be taken as Rs.4,500/-. 16. So far as the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is not justified, and contra to the Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) for awarding compensation towards the loss of dependency and other conventional heads. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , in Para 9 held as follows: 9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. 18. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. 18. Since the deceased was a labourer and as per Ex.A.2/Post Mortem Certificate the age of the deceased was 35 years and Ex.A.3/Inquest Report also shows that the age of the deceased was 35 years. But, P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased admitted in her cross examination that her husband was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident. In view of the inconsistencies with regard to the age of the deceased in the above referred documents, this Court is of the view that the age of the deceased can be taken as ‘40’ years. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier contrary to the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), wherein, the loss of dependency was thus re-assessed at Para-42 of the decision wherein the appropriate multiplier would be ‘15’, which reads as under: “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 19. Evidently, the deceased was survived by his wife, son, mother and father. Therefore, the number of his dependent family members is ‘four’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) held that the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th. The observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) is as under: “14. Therefore, the number of his dependent family members is ‘four’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) held that the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th. The observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) is as under: “14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six.” 20. Now, to assess the basic parameters for awarding compensation, this Court finds that the deceased was earning daily income of Rs.150/-, and the monthly income would be Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, he would have an annual income of Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 12). The 1/4th of the annual income would be Rs.13,500/- (Rs.54000 x ¼ = Rs.13,500/-). After deducting the 1/4th towards personal expenditure of the deceased it would be Rs.40,500/-(Rs.54,000 – Rs.13,500). Applying the appropriate multiplier of ‘15’ to the age of the deceased, the total loss of dependency of claimants would be a sum of Rs.6,07,500/-(Rs.40,500 x 15). Thus, Rs.6,07,500/- would be substantive dependency that the claimants would be entitled to. 21. A reading of the Tribunal’s award makes it clear that the Tribunal’s approach does not accord at all with the current judicial opinion. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,07,500/- under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’ which would be substantive. 22. The Tribunal has committed an error while awarding compensation under conventional heads viz., loss of consortium and funeral expenses, and no amount was awarded for the loss of estate, contrary to the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Funeral expenses: 23. Under this conventional head the Tribunal wrongly awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. The same is enhanced from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.15,000/- (as per the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi’s case). Loss of Estate: 24. Funeral expenses: 23. Under this conventional head the Tribunal wrongly awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. The same is enhanced from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.15,000/- (as per the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi’s case). Loss of Estate: 24. Under this conventional head the Tribunal has not awarded any amount. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head (as per the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi’s case). Loss of Consortium: 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the concept of ‘consortium’ in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . Under this conventional head, the Tribunal wrongly awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards consortium to the claimants, which is not in conformity with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case. Therefore, the 1st & 2nd claimants i.e., wife and son of the deceased are entitled to a loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. 26. In Magma’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para Nos.21, 22 and 23 held as follows: “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.” 27. In pursuance of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma case (supra), the mother and father of the deceased i.e., 3rd and 4th petitioners are entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- each, towards loss of consortium under the head of ‘Filial Consortium’. 28. In pursuance of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma case (supra), the mother and father of the deceased i.e., 3rd and 4th petitioners are entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- each, towards loss of consortium under the head of ‘Filial Consortium’. 28. In Sarla Verma’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of ‘just compensation’ observed as under: “Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 29. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions, I am of the definite opinion that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference. S.No. Head of Compensation Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Amount 1 Loss of Dependency 4,09,280/- Rs.6,07,500/- (Rs.150 x 30 = Rs.4,500 x 12 = Rs.54,000 - 1/3 x 54,000 = Rs,40,500 x 15) 2 Loss of Estate ---- 15,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 2,500/- 15,000/- 4 Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 each to Claimants 1 to 4 (wife, son, mother and father of the deceased) 20,000/- 1,60,000/- Total 4,31,780/- 7,97,500/- 30. In the present case, though the claimants did not file any cross-objections, it is well-settled that Order XLI Rule 33 CPC empowers the Appellate Court to grant relief to a person, who is neither appealed nor filed any cross-objections. The object of this provision is to do complete justice between the parties. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Komal and others, 2012 SCC Online Del 2442 = 2014 ACJ 1540 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 any appeal/Cross Objections. Para No.12 of the decision reads as follows: “12. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Komal and others, 2012 SCC Online Del 2442 = 2014 ACJ 1540 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 any appeal/Cross Objections. Para No.12 of the decision reads 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.” 31. 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 claimants. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record, if the Tribunal/Court considers, the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than the claimed. Following the guidelines in the decision supra, this Court is of the view that the claimants are entitled to enhance the compensation at the appellate stage even without filing an appeal or cross-objections. 32. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference to enhance the compensation from Rs.4,31,780/- to Rs.7,97,500/-. 33. 32. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference to enhance the compensation from Rs.4,31,780/- to Rs.7,97,500/-. 33. For the reasons as aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company is hereby dismissed and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.4,31,780/- to Rs.7,97,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum and costs from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, against the appellant and the 5th respondent (Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited and Owner of the offending vehicle) jointly and severally. The appellant and the 5th respondent are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. (ii) The claimants are directed to pay the requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed by them (As per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramla Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2019 ACJ 559 (SC)). (iii) On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest and costs as apportioned by the Tribunal, by filing proper application before the Tribunal. (iv) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above. (v) The record be sent back to the Tribunal within three weeks from this day. (vi) As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.