JUDGMENT : VIRENDER SINGH, J. 1. Appellant­Coastal Projects Private Limited has preferred the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended up to date, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the award dated 12.3.2013, passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 86 of 2006, titled as Smt. Bhakti Devi and Others vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and Another. 2. By way of award dated 12.3.2013, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 4, by awarding a sum of Rs.11,17,320/­ along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till deposit. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been put on the appellant­ Company, being owner of vehicle No. HP­66­0774 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned Tribunal. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeals, before this Court, may be summed up as under: 4.1. Petitioners, being widow, son and parents of deceased Chaman Lal, have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, against the respondents, being Insurer and owner of the offending vehicle. 4.2. The stand taken by the petitioners, in the claim petition, is that on 6.3.2006, Shri Chaman Lal was returning from the site to T.R.T. Prini, in the offending vehicle, which was being driven, by its driver, Radhe Shyam, in a rash and negligent manner. When, the offending vehicle reached near Sterling Hotel Prini, the driver could not negotiate the curve and lost control over the same. Consequently, the vehicle rolled down in the 500 feet deep gorge. 4.3. In the said accident, Chaman Lal sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. He was taken to Mission Hospital, Manali, where, he was declared dead by the doctors. His postmortem examination was conducted at Zonal Hospital, Kullu. 4.4. Apart from this, it is the further case of the petitioners that the age of Chaman Lal was 28 years, at the time of his death and was serving as Technical Supervisor with respondent No. 2. His postmortem examination was conducted at Zonal Hospital, Kullu. 4.4. Apart from this, it is the further case of the petitioners that the age of Chaman Lal was 28 years, at the time of his death and was serving as Technical Supervisor with respondent No. 2. He was earning Rs.13,000/­ per month. This amount has been bifurcated, by stating that he was receiving Rs.8,000/­ per month, as salary, whereas, he was also earning Rs.5,000/­ per month from agriculture pursuits. 4.5. The matter regarding the accident was reported to the Police with Police Station, Manali. 4.6. Apart from this, it has also been pleaded that Chaman Lal was graduate, Diploma Holder in Draughtsman and Diploma in B.C.M.T. (Bharat Computers and Management Technology). All these facts have been pleaded to show that the petitioners were having the bright past and bleak future. 5. On the basis of assertions, so made, a prayer has been made to allow the petition and to award the compensation to the petitioners, on account of death of Shri Chaman Lal, in the said accident, involving the offending vehicle. 6. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. 7. Respondent No. 1­Insurance Company has filed its reply, by taking the preliminary objections that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence; the offending vehicle was being permitted to ply, in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy; the insured has intentionally committed breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Police; and the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger, at the time of accident. 7.1. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge, however, it has been submitted that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger, at the time of accident. 8. Respondent No. 2 has filed its separate reply, by admitting that Shri Chaman Lal died, in the alleged accident. 7.1. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge, however, it has been submitted that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger, at the time of accident. 8. Respondent No. 2 has filed its separate reply, by admitting that Shri Chaman Lal died, in the alleged accident. Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded in the reply that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of Shri Radhe Shyam, driver, as, another vehicle had come from the opposite direction, which was being driven, rashly and negligently, and all of a sudden, the said vehicle came there from wrong side and in order to avoid major mis­happening, the accident, in question, had taken place. 9. Thus, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 10. Petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent No. 1. 11. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 22.08.2007: 1. Whether the deceased Chaman Lal died due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP­66­0774, of the driver Radhe Shyam, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, If so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger as alleged if so to what effect? OPR­1 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR­1 5. Whether the insured committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged? OPR­1 6. Relief. 12. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 13. After the closure of evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal has allowed the petition, by passing the impugned award, as referred to above. 14. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, respondent No. 2, has preferred the present appeal, before this Court, on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. While holding so, the learned Tribunal has not considered the evidence, adduced by the parties, as, it has been proved that Chaman Lal was employee of the respondent No. 2 and travelling in the offending vehicle, while carrying tools of respondent No. 2. While holding so, the learned Tribunal has not considered the evidence, adduced by the parties, as, it has been proved that Chaman Lal was employee of the respondent No. 2 and travelling in the offending vehicle, while carrying tools of respondent No. 2. He was travelling in the offending vehicle, in discharge of his duties and this fact has not been appreciated, by the learned Tribunal. 15. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle, Radhe Shyam, was having the driving licence bearing No. R10623, which was issued by RTO Dehradun and was valid upto 8.6.2008. 16. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the offending vehicle was being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 17. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the appeal, by exonerating respondent No. 2 to pay the compensation. 18. Along with the appeal, respondent No. 2, has also moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC with a prayer to produce the additional evidence, in respect of driving licence of driver of offending vehicle Shri Radhe Shyam. The reason for moving the application has been pleaded that although, the driving licence of the driver, who unfortunately died, in the accident, was handed over to learned counsel, but, he could not produce the same before the learned Tribunal, which error came to the notice of the learned counsel, after going through the award. 19. On 21.5.2014, the following orders were passed by this Court: “CMP No. 11529 of 2013. Reply, if any, be filed within six weeks. Be put up for consideration along with the main appeal at the time of final hearing.” 20. Despite the fact that time was granted to file reply to the said application, till the date of arguments, no reply was filed to this application. 21. The prayer, so made, in the appeal, as well as, the application, has been opposed by Mr. Despite the fact that time was granted to file reply to the said application, till the date of arguments, no reply was filed to this application. 21. The prayer, so made, in the appeal, as well as, the application, has been opposed by Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, on the ground that the learned Tribunal has rightly put the liability on the appellants, as, it has been proved that the offending vehicle was being permitted to ply, in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, as such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal, as well as, the application. 22. On the other hand, Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate, appearing for petitioners, has prayed that the learned Tribunal has not awarded the compensation, which could be said to be the ‘just compensation’ as, no addition, has been made, on account of the future prospects of deceased Chaman Lal. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 23. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to discuss the evidence adduced by the parties, before the learned Tribunal. 24. After framing of issues, petitioner No. 1, Smt. Bhakti Devi appeared, in the witness­box, as PW­1, and filed her affidavit, which is based upon the assertions, as made, in the claim petition. 25. In the cross­examination by respondent No. 2, this witness has admitted that the accident, in question, has not taken place, in her presence, but, voluntarily stated that the accident had taken place, due to the fault of the driver. Chaman Lal used to visit his native place on Saturday and Sunday. 26. In the cross­examination by respondent No. 1, this witness has deposed that deceased was travelling with goods, in the offending vehicle and was returning back to his quarter. Volunteered that the goods were the tools and machines for preparing maps. She has further deposed that her husband used to prepare maps, by entering into the tunnel. His duty timings were 6.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. to 10 p.m. He used to attend one shift. The accident, in question, had taken place at about 8.00­8.15 p.m. 27. She has further deposed that her husband used to prepare maps, by entering into the tunnel. His duty timings were 6.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. to 10 p.m. He used to attend one shift. The accident, in question, had taken place at about 8.00­8.15 p.m. 27. PW­2, HHC Lal Singh, No. 219, Police Station, Manali, has proved the copy of the FIR, as Ex.PW­2/A. 28. To rebut this evidence, respondent No. 2, has examined RW­1 Naveet Kumar, Assistant Manager (HR & Administration) Coastal Projects Ltd. This witness has deposed that the accident has not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Radhe Shyam, but, another vehicle came there from opposite direction, which was being driven, rashly and negligently and all of a sudden, the said vehicle came from wrong side, and in order to avoid major mis­happening, the accident, in question, had taken place. The driver of the offending vehicle had made efforts to avoid the accident, but, the accident had taken place. The deceased was travelling in the vehicle with his instruments/tools to deposit the same in store of the Company. 29. In the cross­examination by learned counsel for the petitioners, this witness has deposed that Chaman Lal was working as Technical Supervisor with the Company. He has further admitted that, at the time of accident, deceased Chaman Lal was coming back from work site, along with the tools, which were to be deposited, in the store of the Company. 30. In the cross­examination by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, this witness has deposed that Radhe Shyam driver had also died, in the accident. At the relevant time, this witness was posted at Prini. He could not disclose about the date of accident. There were three persons, in the offending vehicle, at the relevant time. However, the offending vehicle was not under his supervision. 31. This witness has further deposed that there were no orders to permit the workers of the Company to travel in the vehicle. The offending vehicle was a goods carrier vehicle. Chaman Lal was looking after multi­purpose work of the Company. Deceased was responsible for supervising the work. Although, he has stated that the department is not having any record to show the description of the tools, which Chaman Lal was carrying. Volunteered that the said record was with the Civil Department. 32. The offending vehicle was a goods carrier vehicle. Chaman Lal was looking after multi­purpose work of the Company. Deceased was responsible for supervising the work. Although, he has stated that the department is not having any record to show the description of the tools, which Chaman Lal was carrying. Volunteered that the said record was with the Civil Department. 32. This is the entire evidence led by the parties to the lis. 33. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has put the liability to pay the amount of compensation, upon the owner of the offending vehicle, on the ground that the initial burden to prove the fact that the offending vehicle was being permitted to ply, as per the terms and conditions, was on the owner and he was bound to produce and prove the necessary documents of the vehicle, including the driving licence. 34. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court, as to how, this burden has been put upon the owner by the learned Tribunal. The plea of violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy has been taken by the Insurance Company. 35. The onus has been put upon respondent No. 1­ Insurance Company to prove issues No. 3, 4 and 5. 36. Record is totally silent about the fact that any efforts have been made by the Insurance Company to move the application, directing the owner to place on record the requisite documents to probabilize the defence, taken by the Insurance Company, with regard to the fact that, offending vehicle was being permitted to ply, in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy; deceased was travelling in the vehicle, as gratuitous passenger; and the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving licence. 37. Admittedly, the Insurance­Company has not led any evidence, in order to probabilize these issues, what to talk of proving the violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 38. No reasons have been assigned by the learned Tribunal, while deciding issues No. 4 and 5, as to how the initial burden was on the owner. 39. It is no longer res integra that the onus to prove the plea is upon the party, which had taken a specific stand/plea. 40. 38. No reasons have been assigned by the learned Tribunal, while deciding issues No. 4 and 5, as to how the initial burden was on the owner. 39. It is no longer res integra that the onus to prove the plea is upon the party, which had taken a specific stand/plea. 40. The learned Tribunal has put the onus to prove issues No. 1 and 2, upon the petitioners, whereas, onus to prove issues No. 3 to 5, has been put upon respondent No. 1. No evidence has been led by respondent No. 1, in the present case. 41. Another fact, which has rightly been pointed out, by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the copy of the driving licence of Shri Radhe Shyam has been placed on record, by respondent No. 2. 42. As per the list of documents, placed on record of the learned Tribunal, at page No. 53, photocopy of the driving licence of the driver, photocopy of the Insurance Policy; and photocopy of the registration certificate of the vehicle, have been placed on record on 5.4.2007, by the owner of the offending vehicle. These documents are already on record at pages No. 53 to 61 of the file of the learned Tribunal. 43. When, the owner of the offending vehicle has placed on record the requisite documents, then, how the learned Tribunal has concluded that the initial burden has not been discharged. As such, those findings are contrary to the factual position, as involved, in the present case. 44. Since, the documents, in question, have already been placed, on record, by the owner of the offending vehicle, before the learned Tribunal, as such, the present application, bearing CMP No. 11529 of 2013, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, is held to be not maintainable and the same is ordered to be disposed of accordingly. 45. Another fact, which also requires to be highlighted, in this case, is that learned Tribunal has wrongly held that respondent No. 2 has not placed on record the documents of the vehicle. Since, the onus has not been put up on respondent No. 2 to prove issue No. 3 to 5, as such, there was no legal obligation upon the owner to adduce any evidence. Since, the onus has not been put up on respondent No. 2 to prove issue No. 3 to 5, as such, there was no legal obligation upon the owner to adduce any evidence. Onus to prove issues No. 1 and 2 was on the petitioners, whereas, onus to prove issues No. 3 to 5 was on respondent No. 1, Insurance­Company. As such, the findings of learned Tribunal, on issues No. 4 and 5, are liable to be modified. 46. So far as the findings of learned Tribunal on issue No. 3, are concerned, those are not sustainable, in the eyes of law, as, the specific plea has been taken by the Insurance Company that the deceased was travelling, in the offending vehicle, as gratuitous passenger. The onus to prove this issue has been put on respondent No. 1, however, no evidence has been led by respondent No. 1, in this case. 47. Admittedly, the deceased was working with respondent No. 2 and he was entrusted with the duty to visit the ongoing work, in the tunnel. As per the stand, taken by the petitioners, he was coming back, along with, his instruments, from the site, when, the accident, in question, had taken place. 48. The term ‘gratuitous passenger’ has no where been defined in M.V. Act, but, it means, one, who has taken the lift. In this case, nothing of the sort has been proved or probabilized, by the Insurance Company, as, the deceased was employee of respondent No. 2 and was coming out from the tunnel, in the offending vehicle, along with his instruments. 49. The Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company vs. Baljeet Kaur and Others, 2004 (2) SCC 1 , has discussed provisions of Section 147 of M.V. Act, as amended, by the 1994 Amendment Act. The relevant paragraphs 17 and 20 of the judgment are reproduced as under: “17. By reason of the 1994 Amendment what was added is “including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle.” The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of the Parliament, therefore, could not have been that the words ‘any person’ occurring in Section 147 would cover all persons who were travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. If such was the intention there was no necessity of the Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as expression ‘any person’ contained in sub­clause (i) of clause (b) of sub­ section (1) of Section 147 would have included the owner of the goods or his authorised representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise. xxx xxx xxx 20. It is therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.” 50. Similar view has been taken by a Co­ordinate Bench of this Court, in a decision dated 22.08.2014 rendered in FAO No. 9 of 2007, titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Teji Devi and Others along with its connected matter. The relevant Paras 14 to 19 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under: “14. I have gone through the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties. It is admitted by all the parties that the deceased has hired the vehicle for transporting his vegetables to Sabzi Mandi and was returning back to his native place in the same vehicle at the time of accident, thus, was owner of the goods, cannot be said to be gratuitous passenger. 15. This Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamla and Others, 2011 ACJ 1550 , has also discussed the same issue while referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. 15. This Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamla and Others, 2011 ACJ 1550 , has also discussed the same issue while referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC) and held that when the passenger had hired the vehicle for transporting his goods for selling and was returning in the same vehicle then the passenger is not unauthorised/gratuitous passenger in the vehicle till he reaches the place from where he had hired the vehicle. It is apt to reproduce Paras 8 to 11 of the judgment herein: “8. Coming to the second plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, a perusal of the reply filed by respondent No. 2, insurance company shows that they had only pleaded that the deceased was admittedly not employee of the insured and was traveling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger. Thus, it was submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC) wherein the plea was taken that the owner himself travel in the cabin of the vehicle and not with the goods so as to be covered under Section 147. However, in case the driver permits a passenger to travel in the tool box, he cannot escape from the liability that he was negligent in driving the vehicle and moreover, in a petition under Section 163­A of the Motor Vehicles Act, rash or negligent driving is not to be proved and, therefore, this decision does not help the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant had also relied upon the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Maghi Ram, 2010 ACJ 2096 (HP), wherein a learned Judge of this Court has considered the question and had observed that the Insurance Company is liable in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including the owner of goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle. It was observed that it is apparent that the goods must normally be carried in the vehicle at the time of accident. 10. It was observed that it is apparent that the goods must normally be carried in the vehicle at the time of accident. 10. The allegations made by the petitioners in the petition as well as in the evidence were that the deceased had gone after hiring the truck with his vegetable and was coming in the same vehicle when the accident took place. The learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila, 2008 ACJ 1381 (P&H), wherein it was observed that a passenger was returning after selling his goods when the vehicle turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving. Insurance Company seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that the deceased was no longer owner of the goods as he had sold them off. It was observed that the deceased had hired the vehicle for transporting his animals for selling and was returning in the same vehicle. It was held that the deceased was not an unauthorized/ gratuitous passenger in the vehicle till he reached the place from where he had hired the vehicle. 11. The above decision clearly applies to the present facts, which are similar to the facts of the case and accordingly, I am inclined to hold that the deceased was not an unauthorized/ gratuitous passenger. No conditions of the insurance policy have been proved that the risk of the owner of goods was not covered in the insurance policy and as such, there is no substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, which is rejected accordingly. 16. Applying the test to the instant case, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of goods at the time of accident and not as a gratuitous passenger. 17. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, which it has failed to do so. 18. The Apex Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi and Others, 2007 AIR SCW 7882, has set aside the judgment made by a Division Bench of this Court whereby the liability was fastened upon the owner, State Government and the insurer jointly and severally to satisfy the award. 18. The Apex Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi and Others, 2007 AIR SCW 7882, has set aside the judgment made by a Division Bench of this Court whereby the liability was fastened upon the owner, State Government and the insurer jointly and severally to satisfy the award. In that case, the vehicle was requisitioned by the State Government during the Assembly Elections, met with the accident during the said period and the owner, State Government and the insurer came to be held liable jointly and severally to satisfy the award by this High Court. The Apex Court held that the owner was not having any control over the vehicle during the said period as the same was requisitioned by the State Government for its use. The owner had no option, but to surrender the possession/control of the same, thus, the vehicle was not in his control. The Apex Court has exonerated the owner of the vehicle and saddled the State Government with liability. 19. Applying the ratio to the present case, the offending vehicle was hired on the said date by the deceased alongwith other persons for taking vegetables to Sabzi Mandi and for back journey to their native place. The owner has accepted the request of the deceased and also the fare, but had not surrendered the possession of the vehicle and the same was in his control. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability.” 51. In the given circumstances, if the stand of the petitioners, as well as, respondent No. 2, is considered, in the light of the above decisions, then, there is nothing on the file to prove or probablize the fact that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. 52. RW­1, examined by respondent No. 2, has deposed, in his cross­examination, that on the date of accident, deceased Chaman Lal was coming back from working site, in the offending vehicle, along with, tools, as, the same had to be deposited with the store. 53. Not only this, this witness has also deposed that although, deceased was posted as civil draughtsman, but, according to him, he has to look after the multipurpose work, in the Company. 54. The proceedings, under the M.V. Act, are summary in nature, where, the matter has to be decided, on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. 55. 53. Not only this, this witness has also deposed that although, deceased was posted as civil draughtsman, but, according to him, he has to look after the multipurpose work, in the Company. 54. The proceedings, under the M.V. Act, are summary in nature, where, the matter has to be decided, on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. 55. In this case, none of the parties, has examined any eye witness to the accident, in question. In such situation, the admitted stand of the parties, qua the fact that the deceased was working with respondent No. 2, and, as such, he was liable to supervise the on­going work, assumes significance. 56. Learned Tribunal has simply decided issue No. 3, in favour of the Insurance Company, on the ground that no documentary evidence has been produced to prove the fact that deceased was carrying tools, in the offending vehicle, from the working site to the store. The plea can be probabilized by way of oral evidence. There is nothing on the record to show as to how the oral evidence, in this regard, is insufficient to probabilize the plea. 57. Thus, the findings of learned Tribunal, qua issue No. 3 are also not sustainable, in the eyes of law. 58. Admittedly, the petitioners, in this case, have not filed any appeal, cross appeal or cross objection. In such situation, the material question which arises for determination before this Court is whether the award can be enhanced in favour of the petitioners, without there being any appeal, cross appeal or cross objection. 59. In terms of the provisions of the M.V. Act, this Court is empowered to exercise the same powers which are vested in the learned Tribunal in the matter of considering the question as to whether ‘just compensation’ has been awarded to the petitioners or not. It can be done by this Court by keeping in view of the object of beneficial piece of legislation. This power of the High Court cannot be subjected to the factum of filing appeal, cross appeal or cross objection. 60. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. It can be done by this Court by keeping in view of the object of beneficial piece of legislation. This power of the High Court cannot be subjected to the factum of filing appeal, cross appeal or cross objection. 60. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. Nasir and Another, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 987 has held that the provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial piece of legislation and the endeavour of the Court should be to provide “just compensation.” The relevant Paras 23 and 24 of the judgment are reproduced as under: “23. Both, the 1923 Act and 1988 Act are beneficent legislation insofar as they provide for payment of compensation to the workmen employed by the employers and/or by use of motor vehicle by the owner thereof and/or the insurer to the petitioners suffering permanent disability. The amount of compensation is to be determined in terms of the provisions of the respective Acts. Whereas in terms of the 1923 Act, the Commissioner who is a quasi judicial authority, is bound to apply the principles and the factors laid down in the Act for the purpose of determining the compensation, Section 168 of the 1988 Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just. 24. Both the Acts aim at providing for expeditious relief to the victims of accident. In these cases, the accidents took place by reason of use of motor vehicles. Both the statutes are beneficial ones for the workmen as also the third parties. The benefits thereof are available only to the persons specified under the Act besides under the Contract of Insurance. The statutes, therefore, deserve liberal construction. The legislative intent contained therein is required to be interpreted with a view to give effect thereto.” (Emphasis Supplied) 61. This view has again been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash and Others vs. Divisional Manager and Another, (2011) 14 SCC 639 . The relevant Para 7 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “7. The legislative intent contained therein is required to be interpreted with a view to give effect thereto.” (Emphasis Supplied) 61. This view has again been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash and Others vs. Divisional Manager and Another, (2011) 14 SCC 639 . The relevant Para 7 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “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 cross­objections. 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.” 62. There is no rule under the M.V. Act that the claimant should specify the amount of claim in the petition, as such, being guided by the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. Nasir and Another, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 987 and Ranjana Prakash and Others vs. Divisional Manager and Another, (2011) 14 SCC 639 , this Court now proceeds to discuss the evidence of the petitioners with regard to monthly income of the deceased. 63. Admittedly, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has not given the increase, on account of future prospects of the deceased, had he been alive. As such, to that extent, the findings of learned Tribunal, on issue No. 3, are liable to be modified. 64. 63. Admittedly, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has not given the increase, on account of future prospects of the deceased, had he been alive. As such, to that extent, the findings of learned Tribunal, on issue No. 3, are liable to be modified. 64. Thus, considering the age of deceased Chaman Lal, at the time of his death, 40% increase is liable to be made, in the earnings of the deceased, on account of his future prospects. Meaning thereby, his monthly income, during his lifetime comes to Rs.11,200/­ (Rs.8,000/­+40% i.e. Rs.3200/­) per month. 65. Keeping in view the number of dependents, and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), 1/4th is liable to be deducted from the personal expenses of the deceased, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly contribution towards his family, comes to Rs.11,200­Rs.2800= Rs.8,400/­ per month. 66. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , all the claimants are also entitled for the consortium. 67. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners for which the petitioners are held entitled, is assessed, as under: 1. Loss of contribution Rs. 8400 x 12 x 17 = 17,13,600/­ 2. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/­ 3. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/­ 4. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000 x 4 = Rs. 1,60,000/­ Total Rs. 17,13,600 + 15,000 + 15,000 + Rs. 1,60,000 = Rs. 19,03,600/­ 68. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 69. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the awarded amount is enhanced. The petitioners are held entitled for the amount of Rs.19,03,600/­ along with interest @ 7.5 %, from the date of filing of petition till the realization of amount, by exonerating the appellant to pay the amount of compensation. The offending vehicle was admittedly insured with respondent No. 1, at the relevant time. As such, the liability to pay the amount, along with interest, is on the Insurance Company. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified in the above terms. 70. Memo of costs be prepared. 71. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back.