JUDGMENT : J. C. DOSHI, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the final judgment, order and award dated 7.5.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam in MACP No.45/2008 whereby a sum of Rs. 10,68,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization with proportionate costs is awarded to the present respondents 1 to 3 (Orig. claimants) as compensation under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the present appellant is held jointly and severally liable for payment of 50% of the said sum, the present appellant has preferred the present First Appeal under Sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The challenge in the present appeal is restricted to a sum of Rs.3,26,600/- only. 2. The brief facts of the present petition are that on 26.8.2008 at about 7.30 AM hours, deceased Vipul Shankarbhai Sindhav, wanted to go to Viramgam for the study and service purpose and was standing nearby pick up bus stand of village Vani, situated in Dhangdhra- Viramgam village, time one between at that Bharatbhai Arjanbhai resident of village Vani came near by to said deceased Vipulbhai taking motor cycle bearing registration no. GJ.1.CS 8423, and he has stopped his motor cycle nearby the deceased Vipulbhai and both were talking with each other, mean while one Ford car bearing its registration no. GJ 3 CA 9495 came from the Viramgam driven by the opponent no.1 with full speed, rashly and negligently and even further coming to the wrong side of the road thereon had dashed his said ford car with the motor cyclist Bharatbhai Arjanbhai, therefore said motor cycle went in to the ditch nearby the road, and the said motor cycle was totally damaged, and deceased Vipulbhai sustained fatal injuries over the head and other injuries over the body, therefore, injured Vipulbhai was brought to Medilink Hospital at A'bad for medical treatment, where he was admitted as a indoor patient and during the medical treatment, he succumbed to said injuries on 27.8.2008 i.e. next day after incident, hence widow and the parents of the deceased Vipulbhai have filed this claim petition under section 166 of M.V. Act to get compensation of Rs.10.00.000/-. 2.1 The tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence led during the trial passed the judgment and award as referred in paragraph 1 of this judgment which has given rise to the present appeal. 3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 4. Learned Advocate Mr.Ninad Shah for Ms.Raol, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company would submit that tribunal committed serious error in taking up the offer letter issued by the ICICI Bnak Ltd., to the deceased as the base for considering the dependency loss as the deceased had not joined the services of the Bank and therefore document relied upon at Exh.27 could not be said to be evidence to establish the income of the deceased. He would further submit that tribunal ought to have considered that there is no evidence on record produced by the claimant to prove the income of the deceased and in that event the tribunal should consider income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- for calculating dependency loss and therefore he would submit that compensation computed by the tribunal is for more than the adequate and just compensation which could be granted to the claimant. 4.1 By placing reliance upon the decision in case of Syed Basheer Ahamed & Ors., vs. Mohammed Jameel & Anr., [ (2009) 2 SCC 225 ], more particularly, paragraph 14 and 21 thereof, he would submit that merely bare assertion of income by the heir of the claimant is not sufficient to discharge the onus on behalf of the claimant and therefore he would submit to allow this appeal. 5. On the other hand, leaned advocate Mr.Mehul Mehta for the org. claimant would submit that it was not a mere offer letter produced at Exh.27 but the ICICI Bank issued issue letter to the deceased – Vipul to engage his services on the terms and conditions stated in the said letter and therefore the tribunal has rightly considered the said document to calculate the dependency loss. He would submit that tribunal has granted very meager compensation as the tribunal ought to have considered loss of future prospect and applied the multiplier considering the decision in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. He would submit that tribunal has granted very meager compensation as the tribunal ought to have considered loss of future prospect and applied the multiplier considering the decision in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. He would further submit that loss of consortium as noted by the tribunal is also incorrect since the deceased was survived by his parents and wife, as well as the personal and pocket expense is also required to be deducted as per decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 5.1 Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the org. claimant would further submit that this is a case where the compensation awarded by the tribunal is required to be enhanced by recalculating under the principle of just and fair compensation. He would further submit that though the claimants have not filed the cross objection for enhancement of the claim amount, looking to the computation of the income and other heads of granting compensation, the tribunal ought to have arrived at just, fair and equitable compensation. 5.2 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Mehta submitted to dismiss the appeal however requested this Court to enhance the compensation. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perusing the records and proceedings, at the outset, let refer to the decision in case in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [ (1979) 4 SCC 365 wherein it has been held that the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales. 7. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., [ (2012) 12 SCC 274 ], in paragraph 2 it has been held thus: “2.… There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance. *** Loss of earnings 20. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance. *** Loss of earnings 20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified.The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs 4846 per month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs 14,66,000.” 8. I may also refer to The decision of Apex Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, [ (2003) 7 SCC 197 ], more particularly, para 15 which reads thus: “15. ……It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance with the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life, which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be “just” and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be “just” compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression “which appears to it to be just”, a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. …” 9. The solitary argument of learned advocate Mr.Shah was that tribunal committed error in taking up the offer letter issued by the ICICI Bank as the base document for calculating the dependency loss despite the deceased–Vipul did not join the services. The argument was added by the words that the tribunal has not considered the fact that the offer letter produced at Exh.27 is not proved in evidence by leading necessary evidence. To appreciate this submission, let refer the document produced at Exh.29 which proves that deceased–Vipul had cleared BA Exam in the year April, 2007, as also completed B.Ed in the year 2008 and also taken the degree of CBS from Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar University. All this merit and potentiality which is proved from the documentary evidence indicates that he was capable of taking up the service and considering his potentiality and capacity, the ICICI Bank after conducting interview shows their willingness to engage services of the deceased with the following remuneration. All this merit and potentiality which is proved from the documentary evidence indicates that he was capable of taking up the service and considering his potentiality and capacity, the ICICI Bank after conducting interview shows their willingness to engage services of the deceased with the following remuneration. Heads Amount (Rs.) Basic 3000/- P.M HRA 800/- P.M Conveyance 550/- P.M Mobile Expenses 350/- P.M The tribunal in its judgment and award believes that deceased was having potentiality to earn what has been offered by the Bank. 10. Insofar as the judgment upon which the learned advocate for the appellant placed reliance in case of Syed Basheer Ahamed (supra) is concerned, here the claimant by leading evidence in the form of offer letter issued by the ICICI Bank Ltd., have discharged the burden to prove that deceased was having potentiality to earn at least Rs.4,700/- per month and therefore the said ratio would not come to the rescue of the appellant. 11. Another issue arises as to whether in absence of any cross-objection or cross appeal on behalf of the claimant, whether in the appeal filed by the insurance company the appellate Court can enhance the compensation granted by the tribunal. O.41 R.31 of CPC r/w O.41 R.22 read with decision in case of Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate Versus Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav [ 2021 (16) SCC 467 ] would rescue the situation. Needless to say that principle of just and fair compensation applies at every stage of proceedings. The duty is casted upon the MACT to assess, calculate and grant just and fair compensation at every stage regardless of filing of appeal. Therefore, it is clear that even in absence of cross-objection or cross appeal the appellate Court holds jurisdiction to enhance the compensation. 12. In Kavita Balothiya vs. Santosh Kumar [ 2024 (0) ACJ 1639 ] the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that no restriction upon the Court to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed and it is the duty of the tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the MV Act, to award just compensation. Paragraph 5 and 6 thereof reads thus: “5. Learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice the decision of this Court in Mona Baghel &ors. vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav & Ors. Paragraph 5 and 6 thereof reads thus: “5. Learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice the decision of this Court in Mona Baghel &ors. vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav & Ors. in (Civil Appeal @ out of SLP(C) NO.29207/2018 wherein the Court has observed as under: "The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Our view, is fortified by the decision of this Court in the Case of Ramla and Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited and Others 2019 2 SCC 192 , wherein, it is held as under: "Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award just compensation. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A just compensation is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The Courts are duty-bound to award just compensation. (See the Judgments of this Court in (a) Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (b) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (c) Ibrahim v. Raju)" 6. The above decision clearly lays down that there is no restriction upon the court to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed. It is the duty of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to award just compensation. Since the Act is a beneficial legislation a just compensation is one which is fair and reasonable on the basis of the evidence adduced irrespective of the amount claimed.” 13. It is the duty of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to award just compensation. Since the Act is a beneficial legislation a just compensation is one which is fair and reasonable on the basis of the evidence adduced irrespective of the amount claimed.” 13. In Chandra Mani Nanda vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr., [ 2024 INSC 777 ] the Hon’ble Apex Court has again reiterated the ratio that it is the duty of the Court to assess the fair compensation and in paragraph 20 has held as under: “20. An argument is raised by learned counsel for the insurance company that the appellant has initially claimed a sum of 230,00,000/- and since the same having been awarded to him by the High Court, no further enhancement is possible. We cannot accept this argument and it is duly rejected. It is a settled proportion of law, that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and reasonable. It is the duty of the Court to assess fair compensation. Rough calculation made by the claimant is not a bar or the upper limit. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto”. 14. Applying the ratio as stated herein above, there is no bar in granting compensation to the claimant under the doctrine of just, fair and equitable compensation even in absence of cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation. The Court cannot oblivious to its duty to assess the just and fair compensation which should be equitable and adequate to meet with the pain of the victim of the road accident. 15. Now, insofar as the quantum aspect is concerned, the tribunal believed that since the ICICI Bank was willing to engage the services of the deceased as a Senior Sales Executive on contractual basis and offered Rs.4,700/- per month basic salary plus emoluments same ought to have been taken as income of the deceased to decide the loss of dependency. I see no error on the part of the tribunal in taking up sum of Rs.4,700/- as income of the deceased which is proved from Exh.27. I see no error on the part of the tribunal in taking up sum of Rs.4,700/- as income of the deceased which is proved from Exh.27. To be noted that, it is not the case of the appellant – insurance company that offer letter at Exh.27 issued by the ICICI Bank is forged and fabricated one. In view of such situation, I see no fathom in the submission of learned advocate for the appellant that tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. 16. The age of the deceased was 22 years and 06 months at the time of road accident on perusal of the school leaving certificate produced at Exh.25 where the date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as 12/04/1996. Thus, in view of decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the loss of future prospect to be granted at 40% and since the deceased was survived by three dependents one-third amount should be deducted towards the personal and pocket expenses and considering the age of the deceased being 22 years, the multiplier of 18 is required to be applied. To be noted further that, claimants are also entitled for compensation under the loss of consortium as the deceased was survived by his parent and spouse and total three members which comes to Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400/- for each member). Likewise, the compensation under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses is also required to be enhanced to Rs.18,150/-. The claimant has also produced the medical bills for the treatment of the deceased received during the road accident which is granted at Rs.35,000/-. 16.1 The learned tribunal has assessed deceased on 50% negligent in causing road accident. Legal representative of deceased have accepted the said finding. No appeal challenging this finding of self negligence of deceased is called in question by filing appeal. Hence, that finding of fact attributing negligence of 50% of the deceased is maintained. 17. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Loss of Dependency: (Rs.4,700/- (-) one-third towards personal and pocket expenses= Rs.3135/- (+) 40% future prospect = Rs.4389/- (x) 12 (x) 18 (multiplier). Hence, that finding of fact attributing negligence of 50% of the deceased is maintained. 17. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Loss of Dependency: (Rs.4,700/- (-) one-third towards personal and pocket expenses= Rs.3135/- (+) 40% future prospect = Rs.4389/- (x) 12 (x) 18 (multiplier). 9,48,024/- Loss of consortium (Rs.48,400/- x 3) 1,45,200/- Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses (Rs.18,150/- each) 36,300/- Medical Expenses 35,000/- Total 11,64,524/- Less : 50% Contributory negligence 5,82,262/- Total 5,82,262/- Already awarded by the tribunal 5,34,100/- Enhanced amount of compensation 48,162/- 18. In wake of above, I hold that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and claimants are entitled to get the total amount of compensation of Rs.5,82,262/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant – insurance company – org. opponent no.3 is dismissed. The insurance company is held liable to pay the compensation of enhanced amount of Rs.48,162/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation with interest and costs within six weeks from today including the interest and costs. 20. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure and as per the apportionment fixed by the tribunal. 21. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. If order of apportionment is not made by the tribunal, it shall be made while disbursing the amount of compensation. 22. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.