JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.103 of 2013 dated 06.04.2016. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the JCB motor vehicle bearing No.AP 5BB 0357 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are wife, children and mother of one Satti Venkata Rathnam (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’). Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are driver and owner of the said crime vehicle. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 29.10.2012, the deceased died in an accident occurred due to negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 1st respondent. ii). The deceased was aged about 45 years and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by doing finance business and seasonal pulses commission business. Being dependents, they claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. 5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the crime vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent. 6. The respondent No.3 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred only due to the contributory negligence of the deceased, but not the 1st respondent/driver. 7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., JCB bearing No.AP 05BB 0357 by the 1st respondent and to cause the accident in question? 2.Whether the 1st respondent driver of the crime vehicle has possessed valid and effective driving license by the time of accident? 3.Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation amount, if so from whom and to what extent? and 4.To what relief?” 8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 32 were examined (the evidence of P.W.3 is eschewed), Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.B.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined, however, Ex.B.1 copy of policy was marked. 9. and 4.To what relief?” 8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 32 were examined (the evidence of P.W.3 is eschewed), Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.B.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined, however, Ex.B.1 copy of policy was marked. 9. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,59,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 10. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer. 11. Heard Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Sivaram, learned counsel representing Sri Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants. 12. Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the incident; that the Tribunal failed to see that the driver of the crime vehicle not possessed any driving license to drive the same at the time of accident; that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record, erroneously granted compensation and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 13. Sri Sivaram, learned counsel representing Sri Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants submits that the tribunal after considering the material placed on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle; that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation even without any cross objections; that under Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimants without any appeal or cross objections and thereby prays to enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimants before the tribunal. 14. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the claimants relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in The National Insurance Company Ltd., v. E.Suseelamma, 2023 SCC Online AP 1725. 15. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car, in which deceased was travelling, in causing the incident? 2. 15. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car, in which deceased was travelling, in causing the incident? 2. Whether this Court can grant just compensation without any appeal or cross-objections by the claimants? and 3. To what relief ? 16. POINT No.1: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident as well the claimants did not prefer any appeal or cross-objections against the findings recorded by the tribunal. 17. As per the testimony of P.W.2, who said to be eyewitness to the incident, the accident occurred on the road from Ravulapalem to Ubalanka and that the crime vehicle and the vehicle of the deceased collided with each other in opposite direction. During cross examination, nothing was elicited to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2. 18. Even on perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.5 F.I.R and charge sheet respectively the incident occurred only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent driver and held responsible for the same. No contra material was produced by the respondents to support their contention that the driver of the car was responsible for the incident. In fact, the 1st respondent, who is best witness to speak what was really happened and on whose fault the accident had occurred, but he did not enter into witness box before the tribunal to say that he is not responsible for the incident. 19. It is also contention of the appellant that the 1st respondent driver of the crime vehicle did not possess any valid license to drive the same. But, to prove the said contention, nothing was placed on record. Thereby, the same cannot be taken into consideration. 20. Viewing from any angle, it is clear in vivid terms that 1st respondent driver of the crime vehicle is responsible for the incident and due to his negligence only the incident had occurred. Thereby, no contributory negligence can be attributed against the deceased. Thus, this point is answered against the appellant. 21. POINT NO.2: Coming to the just compensation entitled by the claimants is concerned, as stated supra, no appeal or cross objection is preferred by the claimants. However, it is the contention of the claimants that even no appeal preferred by the claimants, this Court can enhance the compensation. 22. Thus, this point is answered against the appellant. 21. POINT NO.2: Coming to the just compensation entitled by the claimants is concerned, as stated supra, no appeal or cross objection is preferred by the claimants. However, it is the contention of the claimants that even no appeal preferred by the claimants, this Court can enhance the compensation. 22. As per the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in E.Suseelamma case (referred to supra), by referring plethora of pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court can enhance the compensation, if so they are entitled, without any appeal or cross objections. In the said judgment, it was categorically held that “We are therefore of the considered view that for doing justice and to award just compensation, the provisions of Order 41 rule 33 are to be invoked which are being invoked accordingly, and we find that there is no legal interdict or a prohibition under law, rather the mandate of law is to award just compensation”. 23. Thereby, this Court can decide the just compensation entitled by the claimants even in the absence of any appeal or cross-objections preferred by the claimants. 24. By taking into consideration of facts and circumstances, even the appellants claimed income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month, in view of the absence of material to fortify the same, the tribunal fixed notional monthly income of deceased @ Rs.4,000/- per month. This Court did not find any fault with the conclusion arrived by the tribunal, while deciding the income of the deceased. Thereby, the actual income of the deceased is determined at Rs.48,000/- per annum. 25. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC), the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows: 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, Sarla Verma lays down: - “30. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, Sarla Verma lays down: - “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 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 exceeds six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family.However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 26. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra), at para 59.4. it is held “In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component”. (emphasis supplied) 27. In the present case as per the above said decisions, 30% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is in the age group of 45 years, which is not in dispute. After adding 30% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects his income is determined at Rs.62,400/-(Rs.48,000/- + Rs.14,400/-). 28. In the case on hand, the deceased was married, and there are four claimants depending on him, thereby the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be 1/4th from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.46,800/-. 29. 28. In the case on hand, the deceased was married, and there are four claimants depending on him, thereby the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be 1/4th from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.46,800/-. 29. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr., 2017 (3) SCC 315, at Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 held as follows : 11………it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident……... 12……… While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be……. ……. there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country.”……. 30. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 45 years is 14. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.6,55,200/- (Rs.46,800/- x 14). Apart from that, as per the Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra) as well New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati (2020) 9 SCC 644 , an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 3) towards spousal and parental consortium, an amount Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection are awarded. Apart from that, as per the Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra) as well New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati (2020) 9 SCC 644 , an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 3) towards spousal and parental consortium, an amount Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection are awarded. In-total the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.8,05,200/-. 31. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S.No. Heads Calculation 1 The annual income of the deceased. Rs.48,000/- per annum 2 40% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.48,000/- + Rs.14,400/-) Rs.62,400/- 3 1/4th to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.46,800/-. 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 14. (Rs.46,800/- x 14) Rs.6,55,200/- 5 Loss of spousal and parental consortium Rs.1,20,000/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs.8,05,200/- 32. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,59,000/- to Rs.8,05,200/-. Thus, this appoint is answered in favour of claimants. 33. POINT No.3: In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation only and with regard to the remaining aspects there is no need to disturb the order passed by the Tribunal. As such, the appeal preferred by the appellants is liable for dismissal. 34. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. However, in view of the above observations, enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,59,000/- to Rs.8,05,200/- with interest at 6% per annum, with proportionate costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization against driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. On such deposit, the claimants Nos.2 and 3 are entitled the enhanced compensation amount equally and they are permitted to withdraw the same after attaining majority with interest accrued thereon. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation amount before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.