JUDGMENT : Nisha M. Thakore, J. 1. All these appeals arises u/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’) filed at the instance of original opponent no.2 – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 23rd April, 2016 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.1186 of 2009, Motor Accident Claim Petition no.1187 of 2009, Motor Accident Claim Petition no.1188 of 2009 and Motor Accident Claim Petition no.931 of 2009. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of the respective claimants holding the driver of the S.T. bus – original opponent no.2 – present appellant solely negligent for the accident. 2. Before considering the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to mention that all the aforesaid claim petitions filed by the respective claimants against the same opponents, arises out of the same accident. Though the learned Judge has dealt with each of the claim petitions separately, however, noticing the limited challenge made by the appellant – S.T. Corporation, we have heard these matters together and are decided by this common order. 3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, the brief facts leading to the accident are summarized hereunder:- 3.1 On 9th May, 2009, one Rashmiben (deceased) along with the husband - the claimant Sureshbhai Chhotabhai Thakkar and her son Varun Sureshbhai Thakkar (deceased) had started from their home situated at Karelibaug, Vadodara to visit temple at Dakor by driving their Santro car bearing registration no. GJ-06 AB-7807. The said Santro car was driven by one Sachinbhai Manubhai Patel and the car belonged to his father. 3.2 It is contended by the claimants that the said Santro car was driven at a very moderate speed and on the correct side of the road i.e. left side of the road. It is the case of the claimants that when they reached at M. Petrol Pump, at that time, the S.T. Bus bearing registration no.GJ-18 V-8391 suddenly entered on their side of the road. It is the case of the claimants that when they reached at M. Petrol Pump, at that time, the S.T. Bus bearing registration no.GJ-18 V-8391 suddenly entered on their side of the road. It was contended that the S.T. Bus was driven by the original opponent no.1 in rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed due to which the opponent no.1 had lost control over the steering of the S.T. Bus, which has resulted into the crossing of the divider of opposite side i.e. on wrong side of the road. As a result of it, the S.T. Bus had dashed with the Santro car from the front side, resulting into an accident. Due to this accident, the passengers in the Santro car i.e. Rashmiben wife of Sureshbhai Thakkar, Varun – son of Sureshbhai Thakkar and Sachin Mohanbhai Patel – driver of the Santro car expired on the spot. Sureshbhai Thakkar had survived the accident, but had sustained permanent disability on account of grievous injuries caused due to the accident. 3.3 With these facts pleaded, the claim petitions were preferred before the Tribunal seeking compensation towards the untimely death of the family members of the injured claimant, as well as of the driver of the Santro car. The details of which are as under : M.A.C.P. no.1186 of 2009 :- The claimant – Sureshbhai Thakkar had preferred the aforesaid claim petition u/s.166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- towards the death of his wife i.e. Rashmiben with proportionate costs and interest. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award dated 23rd April, 2016 partly allowed the claim petition holding the opponent no.1 i.e. the driver of the S.T. Bus solely negligent towards the alleged accident. The Tribunal held the claimant entitled to recover an amount of Rs.38,49,032/- as compensation from the opponent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally together with running interest of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment along with the proportionate cost of the petition. The opponent nos.3 to 5 - driver, owner and the insurance company of the Santro car, were exonerated from their negligence and consequential liability towards the accident. The opponent nos.3 to 5 - driver, owner and the insurance company of the Santro car, were exonerated from their negligence and consequential liability towards the accident. M.A.C.P. no.1187 of 2009 :- The said claim petition was filed by Sureshbhai Thakkar u/s.166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- on account of the death of his son i.e. Varun Sureshbhai Thakkar with proportionate costs and interest. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award dated 23rd April, 2016 partly allowed the claim petition holding the opponent no.1 i.e. the driver of the S.T. Bus solely negligent towards the alleged accident. The Tribunal held the claimant entitled to recover an amount of Rs.8,80,000/- as compensation from the opponent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally together with running interest of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment along with the proportionate cost of the petition. The opponent nos.3 to 5 - driver, owner and the insurance company of the Santro car, were exonerated from their negligence and consequential liability towards the accident. M.A.C.P. no.1188 of 2009 :- The said claim petition was filed by Sureshbhai Thakkar u/s.166 of the M.V. Act on account of the grievous injuries sustained by him due to the said accident, merely seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award dated 23rd April, 2016 partly allowed the claim petition holding the opponent no.1 i.e. the driver of the S.T. Bus solely negligent towards the alleged accident. The Tribunal held the claimant entitled to recover an amount of Rs.6,63,296/- as compensation from the opponent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally together with running interest of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment along with the proportionate cost of the petition. The opponent nos.3 to 5 - driver, owner and the insurance company of the Santro car, were exonerated from their negligence and consequential liability towards the accident. The opponent nos.3 to 5 - driver, owner and the insurance company of the Santro car, were exonerated from their negligence and consequential liability towards the accident. M.A.C.P. no.931 of 2009 :- The said claim petition filed by Neetaben Sachinbhai Patel (wife of the deceased - driver of Santro car) along with her minor daughter and parents of the deceased Sachinbhai Patel u/s.166 of the M.V. Act on account of the death of her husband, father of the claimant no.2 and son of the claimant nos.3 and 4, due to the said accident merely seeking compensation of Rs.51,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award dated 23rd April, 2016 partly allowed the claim petition holding the opponent no.1 i.e. the driver of the S.T. Bus solely negligent towards the alleged accident. The Tribunal held the claimant entitled to recover an amount of Rs.39,09,584/- as compensation from the opponent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally together with running interest of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment along with the proportionate cost of the petition. Hence these appeals at the instance of original opponent no.2 – S.T. Corporation under Section 173 of the Act. 4. The matters were notified for admission hearing before the co-ordinate bench on 26th April, 2017 along with Civil Applications filed in the respective appeals seeking stay against the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. The appeals were admitted and on a condition that the appellant – S.T. Corporation deposits entire awarded amount with interest with the concerned Tribunal, stay against the impugned judgment and award was directed. 5. On 10th October, 2017, the co-ordinate Bench, upon deposit of the aforesaid awarded amount by the S.T. Corporation, permitted withdrawal of 30% amount to the claimants, whereas remaining 70% of the awarded amount was directed to be invested in FDRs in the name of claimant/s in any Nationalized Bank and the interest was permitted to be withdrawn on such FDRs. periodically, which may accrue pending the hearing of these appeals. 6. The matters were taken-up for final hearing. 7. Heard Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the appellant – S.T. Corporation, Ms. Masumi V. Nanavaty, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr.Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned advocate on record for the respondent no.5 – insurance company and Mr. MTM Hakim, learned advocate with Mr. 6. The matters were taken-up for final hearing. 7. Heard Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the appellant – S.T. Corporation, Ms. Masumi V. Nanavaty, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr.Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned advocate on record for the respondent no.5 – insurance company and Mr. MTM Hakim, learned advocate with Mr. Mohsin Hakim, learned advocate on record for the original claimants in the respective appeals. 8. At the outset, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant – S.T. Corporation has fairly submitted that the present appeals challenging the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal are mainly confined on the issue of negligence. 8.1 As evident from the grounds raised in the memo of the appeals, according to Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate, the Tribunal committed serious error by holding the driver of the S.T. bus solely negligent for the accident. It was submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the manner in which the accident had taken place as evident from the documents brought on record by the original claimants. It was submitted that the driver of the Santro car was equally negligent and the Tribunal failed to decide the contributory negligency of the driver of the Santro car. Our attention was invited to the reasons assigned by the Tribunal while deciding the issue no.1. It was submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated evidence of opponent no.1 – driver, who was examined as witness by the opponent no.2 S.T. Corporation. The evidence of the said witness was referred to and relied upon by the learned advocate to contend that while S.T. bus had reached Sama-Savli road, one Maruti car had apparently taken turn from the gap of divider to move towards the petrol pump and in order to avoid the accident with the Maruti car, the driver had taken the turn on the side of the road from the gap of the divider and at that time, the Santro car had suddenly reached from opposite side and ultimately dashed with the S.T. bus. 8.2 Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant had further invited our attention to the panchnama and sketch of spot of accident produced at Exh.25 to appreciate the aforesaid evidence of the opponent no.1. 8.2 Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant had further invited our attention to the panchnama and sketch of spot of accident produced at Exh.25 to appreciate the aforesaid evidence of the opponent no.1. By referring to the aforesaid defence raised by the S.T. Corporation and the damage caused to the vehicles involved in the accident, it was submitted that both the drivers of the vehicle involved in the accident were equally negligent. Inasmuch as no breaks were applied, which would have otherwise avoided occurrence of accident. It was therefore, urged before us to allow the appeals preferred by the S.T. Corporation by fixing contributory negligence of the deceased driver of the Santro car and to modify the impugned judgment and award accordingly. 9. The aforesaid contentions of the learned advocate for the S.T. Corporation were vehemently objected by Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants. Learned advocate had also referred to the relevant observations of the Tribunal and the reasons assigned leading to the conclusion of holding the driver of the S.T. Corporation solely negligent towards the accident. According to the learned advocate, it is clearly evident from the appreciation of the panchnama in light of the sketch drawn by the Police Officer during the course of investigation, FIR Exh.23 - dated 9th May, 2009 as well as, complaint dated 9th May, 2009 lodged against the opponent no.1 by Sanjaybhai Manubhai Patel – owner of the Santro Car at Exh.24 indicates that the S.T. bus had in fact crossed the divider and had entered on the wrong side of the road. Whereas, the driver of the Santro car was driving on its correct side of the road. It was submitted that indisputedly, the offending bus was proceeding from Dumad chowkdi to Sama chowkdi and at the relevant time, the S.T. bus left its side and entered into the wrong side and collided with the Santro car, which was otherwise coming from the opposite direction i.e. Sama side. 9.1 At this stage, the learned advocate for the original claimants had also referred to the cross-examination of the opponent no.1 – driver of the S.T. bus (Exh.66). In his evidence, he has clearly admitted the fact that if he would have applied the breaks, occurrence of the accident could have been avoided. 9.1 At this stage, the learned advocate for the original claimants had also referred to the cross-examination of the opponent no.1 – driver of the S.T. bus (Exh.66). In his evidence, he has clearly admitted the fact that if he would have applied the breaks, occurrence of the accident could have been avoided. It was emphasized that in his cross-examination, he has admitted that the department had issued charge-sheet against him in the departmental proceedings. 9.2 Learned advocate had relied upon the decision of this Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Giraben Dilipbhai Patel & Ors., 2017 (1) GLR 463 . By referring to the relevant observations, learned advocate had submitted that in similarly situated facts, where the offending Maruti car came from opposite direction all of a sudden, crossed and jumped the divider and came in front of Truck and dashed with it. The Court held that the Truck driver was not negligent and it was the driver of the Maruti car, who was held solely negligent. 10. Upon hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, we have verified from the learned advocates on the aspect of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants had submitted that no grounds are raised in the appeals nor any arguments are raised on the issue of amount of compensation under the conventional heads in light of the judgment of the constitution bench in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi - (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Learned advocate had referred to the relevant observations of the subsequent decision of three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 to contend that in a fatal case, the claimant shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under the three conventional heads, which are loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 12. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant – S.T. Corporation has objected to the aforesaid prayer of the learned advocate for the original claimants and has referred to the determination of compensation under the different heads by the Tribunal. 12. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant – S.T. Corporation has objected to the aforesaid prayer of the learned advocate for the original claimants and has referred to the determination of compensation under the different heads by the Tribunal. It was submitted that just and proper compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal, which calls for no interference in the facts of the case. It was further submitted that in absence of any cross appeal or cross-objections being filed by the original claimants, this Court may not entertain the prayer of enhancement of compensation. 13. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants relied upon the relevant provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, which gives power to the Courts to do complete justice between the parties even in absence of any appeal or objections being filed by the respondent or parties to the litigation. 13.1 In support of his submissions, he had referred to the decision of this Court in case of Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amarsing Pratapsing Sikliker & Ors., 1993 (1) GLR 270 . By making the aforesaid submissions, he has urged this Court to pass appropriate orders. 14. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award passed in respective claim petitions, as well as, having perused the original Record and Proceedings, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence including the copy of the panchnama and the sketch of spot of the accident produced at Exh.25, copy of the FIR produced at Exh.23 lodged by Sanjaybhai Patel, the owner of the Santro car while determining the issue of negligency. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence of injured eye-witness Sureshbhai C. Thakkar, who has been examined at Exh.18 and was travelling with his wife (deceased) and son (deceased) in the Santro car. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the evidence of the opponent no.1 driver of offending S.T. bus, who has been examined as witness by opponent no.2 – S.T. Corporation at Exh.66. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are reproduced hereunder:- “7.4 Now, in order to substantiate the submissions of both the parties, we have to look at the documentary evidence produced on record. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are reproduced hereunder:- “7.4 Now, in order to substantiate the submissions of both the parties, we have to look at the documentary evidence produced on record. The FIR pertaining to this accident is produced at Exh.23 which was lodged by Sanjaybhai Manubhai Patel who is the owner of Santro Car No.GJ-06 AB 7807 driven by deceased. As per the complaint, the said Sanjaybhal had not seen the accident, but he rushed to the place of accident after the occurrence. In order to prove this case, the claimant - Sureshbhai Chhotabhai Thakkar (husband of deceased) has been examined at Exh 18, wherein, he has stated that, at the time of accident he was travelling with his deceased wife and son in Santro Car No.GJ-06 AB-7807 and they were proceeded from Karelibaug to Dumad chowkdi. He has further stated that Santo Car No.GJ-06 AB-7807 was driven by Sachinbhai at very moderate speed and on the left side of the road and when they reached near M. Petrol Pump, at that time, the opponent no.1 came there driving his S.T. Bus bearing No.GJ-18 V-8391 in a rash and negligent manner and at very high speed, due to which, the opponent no.1 lost the control over the steering of his bus and he came on wrong side from the gap of divider and dashed his ST bus against the Santro Car and thereby, the accident was caused. In the cross-examination by Ld. Advocate for the opponent no 2- S.T. Corporation, the claimant has admitted that, at the time of accident, he was siting besides his wile in the back side seat and his son Varun was sitting besides the driver seat. There were four persons travelling in Santro Car. He has further admitted that they were proceeded from Karelibaug to Dumad chowkdi and he was sitting in such a position that he could not see from front side. He has stated that he saw ST bus coming from opposite direction. He has further admitted that their Santro Car was going in the middle of the road and that ST bus came from the divider and dashed with the Santro Car from its front side. He has admitted that he has seen the accident. The claimant has further cross-examined by Ld. He has further admitted that their Santro Car was going in the middle of the road and that ST bus came from the divider and dashed with the Santro Car from its front side. He has admitted that he has seen the accident. The claimant has further cross-examined by Ld. Advocate for the opponent no.5- Insurance Company, in which, he has stated that there were four persons including driver were seated in Santro Car The claimant has further admitted that there was double track road, one track is going from Vadodara to Dumad and another track is going from Dumad to Vadodara and there was a divider between two track and there was a gap between the divider to take a turn. He has further admitted that the road is proceeded from north to south i.e. from Vadodara to Express Highway Towards west side, there is a way going from Vadodara to Dumad and towards east side, there is a way going from Dumad to Vadodara. There was a gap of divider to the opposite of M. Patel Petrol Pump. At the time of accident, the ST bus was coming from Dumad chowkdi to Vadodara and the said ST bus left its track and went on wrong track from the gap of divider and dashed its front portion against the Santro Car, due to which, Santro Car was dragged to back side up to 20 to 25 feet. 7.5 The Panchnama of the place of accident along with sketch is produced at Exh.25. If, we peruse the same, it clearly shows that the accident had occurred to the opposite of M. Patel & Co. Petrol Pump on the road which proceeded from Sama Tea point to Dumad chowkdi. The road is stated to be be north to south in length. It is further revealed from the panchnama that there was a divider between the roads and one road is going from Sama to Dumad chowkdi and another road is going from Dumad chowkdi to Sama. There was a big gap between the divider. It is further revealed from the panchnama that the ST bus No.GJ-18 V-8391 was found lying oblique position towards southern side corner and its front left side wheel was found on the edge of the road and driver side front wheel was on the kachha road. There was a big gap between the divider. It is further revealed from the panchnama that the ST bus No.GJ-18 V-8391 was found lying oblique position towards southern side corner and its front left side wheel was found on the edge of the road and driver side front wheel was on the kachha road. While, the driver side rear wheel of the said ST bus was on the edge of the road and its left side rear wheel was lying at the distance of 7 feet away from the divider on the east side. It further shows from the panchnama that M. Patel & Co petrol pump is situated towards east side and the divider is there on east side at the distance of about 19 feet away from the rear wheel of the ST bus. It is further revealed from the panchnama that Santro Car No.GJ-06 AB-7807 driven by deceased was found in the front of ST bus and its front body was smashed completely and found under the front bumper of the ST bus and its steering and both doors were broken. The blood marks were also seen on the front seat as well as back seat. The said Santro Car was found lying towards west side on kachha road. The Santro Car suffered damage to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. It further transpires from the Panchnama that the front left side body of offending ST bus was pressed inside and its head light bumper and radiator were broken. The damage caused to the said offending ST bus was at Rs.20,000/- only. 7.6 The opponent no.2- S.T. Corporation has examined the opponent no 1- driver of offending ST bus as its witness at Exh.66. The said witness has stated in his chief-examination that at the relevant time of accident, he was coming from Ahmedabad to Vadodara by carrying the passengers in ST bus No.GJ-18-V-8391 and after passing Dumad chowkdi when he reached on Sama-Savli road, at that time, one Maruti Car had abruptly took a turn from the gap of divider for, going towards Petrol pump and in order to avert the accident with the Maruti Car, he took a turn on the side of the road from the gap of divider and at that time, the Santro Car came from opposite side and dashed with the ST bus. In his cross-examination, the opponent no.1 has admitted that Santro Car was coming on the side of the road from Vadodara to Dumad chowkdi. He has admitted that if the brake was applied at the relevant point of time, the accident could not have taken place. He has admitted that his ST bus went on the right side of the road and its wheel were on the kaccha road. He has further admitted that he could visualize the vehicle at far distance from the height of his driver seat.” 15. Thus, the Tribunal has upon close examination of the aforesaid evidence has arrived at a conclusion that it was the opponent no.1 – the driver of S.T. bus solely negligent for causing the accident and has consequently fixed the liability of appellant – S.T. Corporation towards the compensation. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are reproduced as under : “7.7 In the said accident, involvement of ST bus and Santro bus and death of the deceased are not in dispute. The point is whether the opponent no. 1- bus driver or the deceased-driver of Santro Car or both were at fault. Admittedly, the accident had occurred on the road which is proceeding from Sama to Dumad chowkdi. It is not in dispute that the opponent no.1- bus driver was proceeded from Dumad chowkdi to Sama, whereas the deceased Sachinbhai was proceeded from of Sama to Dumad chowkdi and therefore, both the vehicles were moving in different direction it is further revealed from the panchnama and sketch of the spot of accident produced at Exh.25 that there is one way road and divider is there between the road. One road is going Dumad chowkdi to Sama and another way is going from Sama to Dumad chowkdi. Further, there is a big gap about 25 feet between the divider. Admittedly, the offending ST bus was proceeding from Dumad chowkdi to Sama on the west side of the road and at the relevant time, the ST bus left its side and went on extreme wrong side i.e. right side and collided with the Santro Car coming from opposite direction I.e. from Sama side. Admittedly, the offending ST bus was proceeding from Dumad chowkdi to Sama on the west side of the road and at the relevant time, the ST bus left its side and went on extreme wrong side i.e. right side and collided with the Santro Car coming from opposite direction I.e. from Sama side. In this case, the opponents have examined the opponent no.1- bus driver at Exh.66, wherein, he has stated that when he reached on Sama-Savli road, at that time, one Maruti Car had abruptly took a turn from the gap of divider for going towards Petrol pump and in order to avert the accident with the Maruti Car, he took a tum on the side of the road from the gap of divider and at that time, the Santro Car came from opposite side-and dashed with the ST bus. However, no evidence in this regard has been led by the opponents. Even, in the written statement at Exh.16, the opponents have not raised such contentions. So, the facts stated by the opponent no.1 in his evidence cannot be believable and a seems to be afterthought. For the sake of convenience, is Tribunal believes the say of the opponent no.1- bus driver, then also, the opponent no.1 being in elevated position could visualize the movement of the vehicle coming from opposite direction and if he had been diligent he could have avoided the accident but he failed to do so. It is further revealed from the deposition of the claimant at Exh.18 who is an eye-witness of this accident that the opponent no.1- bus driver left his correct side went on wrong side and hit the Car of the deceased. In this case, the opponent no.2 has examined the opponent no.1-bus driver as its witness, but he is only an interested witness to see that his department is exempted from paying compensation. While, the evidence of the claimant is more reliable than that of opponent no.1, because he is an eye-witness and a victim in the accident. In this case, the opponent no.2 has examined the opponent no.1-bus driver as its witness, but he is only an interested witness to see that his department is exempted from paying compensation. While, the evidence of the claimant is more reliable than that of opponent no.1, because he is an eye-witness and a victim in the accident. He is not interested towards any of the drivers and thus, he is no need to hide the true facts is further evident that the impact was so violent and forceful that the Santro Car was completely smashed from its front side and in the resultant of this accident, the driver of Santro Car including claimants wile Rashmiben and his son Varun who were traveling in Santro Car had sustained grievous injures and died and that the claimant had suffered injuries. Thus, keeping all the aspects in mind and way and manner of happening of accident, I am of the considered view that this accident had occurred due to sole and complete negligence on the part of opponent no 1-bus driver. So, keeping all the aspects in mind and way and manner of happening of accident, there is no hesitation to hold that the opponent no.1 was solely responsible for the occurrence of the present accident which resulted in death of deceased. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 accordingly. 7.8 As decided above, the opponent no.1- driver of offending ST bus was found negligent for causing the accident, in which the deceased Rashmiben had sustained grievous injuries and later she died. Therefore, it is duty of the Tribunal to award just compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased.” 16. Upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, as against the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, we do not find any error being committed by the Tribunal in arriving at a conclusion holding the opponent no.1 – driver of the S.T. bus solely negligent towards the accident. Upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, as against the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, we do not find any error being committed by the Tribunal in arriving at a conclusion holding the opponent no.1 – driver of the S.T. bus solely negligent towards the accident. It is apparent from the panchnama of sketch produced at Exh.26, in light of the FIR/complaint filed by Sanjaybhai Manubhai Patel – Exh.23 and the evidence of the injured witness Sureshbhai C. Thakkar at Exh.18 as against the cross-examination of the opponent no.1 – driver of the S.T. Corporation that the driver of the S.T. bus had suddenly entered into the wrong side of the road, whereas, the Santro car was on its correct side and with sudden entry of the S.T. bus, it had dashed with the Santro car. What is evident from the panchnama of spot of accident, the S.T. bus was found lying in oblique position towards southern side corner and the front left side wheel of the S.T. bus was found at the edge of the road, whereas, the front wheel of the driver side of the S.T. bus had almost entered the kachha road. It is further evident from the reading of the panchnama that the road was 20 Ft. wide, the S.T. bus had almost cross the wrong side. Upon further appreciation of the aforesaid facts, in light of the evidence of the driver of S.T. bus at Exh.66, who has in his cross-examination admitted the fact that the breaks of the S.T. bus was not effected. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that if the breaks were applied, the accident could have been avoided. What is evident from the appreciation of the spot of accident from the panchnama that the front portion of Santro car was completely smashed which suggests the impact and force with which the S.T. bus dashed with the Santro car. Unfortunately, Sachin Patel (deceased) was driving the Santro car and the son of the claimant – Varunbhai S. Thakkar (deceased) was seating next to the driver side and Rashmiben (deceased) along with her husband Sureshbhai Thakkar, who was also travelling in the Santro car as passenger, succummed to serious injuries sustained because of the impact caused to the Santro car. Unfortunately, Sachin Patel (deceased) was driving the Santro car and the son of the claimant – Varunbhai S. Thakkar (deceased) was seating next to the driver side and Rashmiben (deceased) along with her husband Sureshbhai Thakkar, who was also travelling in the Santro car as passenger, succummed to serious injuries sustained because of the impact caused to the Santro car. The panchnama also indicates that the front left side body of the offending S.T. bus was completely pressed inside and its head light, bumper and radiator were also damaged. 17. The aforesaid circumstances emerging on the record speaks volume about the negligence of the driver of the S.T bus. We are therefore, in complete agreement with the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while holding the driver of the S.T. bus solely negligent for the accident. 18. This brings us to the aspect of quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal in the respective claim petitions. Indisputedly, the original claimants have not approached this Court by filing any separate appeal or any cross-objections seeking enhancement of the awarded amount. Section 166 of the M.V. Act, puts an obligation on the Courts to award just compensation. To serve the object of the M.V. Act, which is considered as a beneficial legislation, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the record of the cases on hand, in our opinion, the power conferred upon the Appellate court in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code can always be invoked to do complete justice even in absence of any appeal or cross-objections filed by the original claimants as held by this Court in case of Amarsing Pratapsing Sikliker & Ors., (supra). We are convinced that this is a fit case to consider the prayer of the respondents – original claimants for enhancement under three conventional heads. 19. We are conscious of the fact that the accident had occurred on 9th May, 2009 and the Tribunal while determining the quantum of compensation under the conventional head, had no benefit of the subsequent decision of the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19. We are conscious of the fact that the accident had occurred on 9th May, 2009 and the Tribunal while determining the quantum of compensation under the conventional head, had no benefit of the subsequent decision of the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Laying down the concept of uniformity in grant of consortium and loss of love and affection as rightly pointed-out by Mr.Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting the term consortium as in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 had evolved the concept of “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, as well as, “filial consortium”. Thus, the loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that the Tribunals and High Courts have been directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is legitimate conventional head. It would be appropriate to revisit the relevant observations of the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , which reads as under :- “52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” We are therefore, inclined to accept the prayer of Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the respondents – original claimants to enhance the amount of consortium @ Rs.40,000/- per claimant as fixed in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) followed with 10% rise every three year right from the date of pronouncement till the actual realization. The amount of compensation as determined under the head of funeral expenses is redetermined as Rs.15,000/-. At the same time, we could notice that the Tribunal has completely lost sight of the award of compensation under the head of loss of estate. Considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), we award compensation under additional conventional head of loss of estate as Rs.15,000/- followed by rise of 10% every three years. 20. In view of the aforesaid acceptance of the prayer for enhancement of the amount of compensation under three conventional heads, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in the respective claim petition is redetermined as under:- S. No. First Appeals (MACP No.) Particulars of head and compensation awarded by Tribunal Amount enhanced (Rs.) 1. 20. In view of the aforesaid acceptance of the prayer for enhancement of the amount of compensation under three conventional heads, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in the respective claim petition is redetermined as under:- S. No. First Appeals (MACP No.) Particulars of head and compensation awarded by Tribunal Amount enhanced (Rs.) 1. First Appeal No.1455 of 2017 (MACP no.1186 of 2009) 1. Loss of dependency 37,89,032 37,89,032 2. Loss of consortium, loss of love and affection 50,000 48,000 3. Transportation and funeral expenses 10,000 18,000 4. Loss of estate - 18,000 Total Compensation 38,49,032 38,73,032 2. First Appeal No. 1456 of 2017 (MAP No. 1187 of 2009) 1. Loss of dependency 8,10,000 8,10,000 2. Loss of consortium, loss of love and affection 60,000 48,000 3. Transportation and funeral expenses 10,000 18,000 4. Loss of estate - 18,000 Total Compensation 8,80,000 8,94,000 3. First Appeal No. 1458 of 2017 (MAP No. 931 of 2009) 1. Loss of dependency 37,99,584 37,99,584 2. Loss of consortium, loss of love and affection 1,00,000 96,000 3. Transportation and funeral expenses 10,000 18,000 4. Loss of estate - 18,000 Total Compensation 39,09,584 39,31,584 21. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant S.T. Corporation fails. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and award dated 23rd April, 2016 passed by the Tribunal (except MACP no.1188 of 2009) stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 22. The original claimants of the respective claim petition (except MACP no.1188 of 2009) are held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as quantified by us, which shall be deposited by the appellant – S.T. Corporation with the concerned Tribunal within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Let such enhanced amount of compensation be deposited with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. On depositing of the aforesaid awarded amount, the Tribunal is directed to release and disburse the awarded amount in favour of the original claimants upon due verification. 23. The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The R. & P. be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.