JUDGMENT : V. SRINIVAS, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P. No. 7 of 2015 dated 22.12.2015. 2. The appellant is A.P.S.R.T.C. owner of the Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 3320 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are wife and son of one Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) respectively. Respondent No. 3 herein is the driver of the crime bus. 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 15.10.2014, at about 05.30 p.m. when the deceased proceeding on his moped near Saibaba Temple, Tadepalligudem, the crime bus driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the moped of deceased, resulting in sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment, on 23.10.2014, he succumbed to injuries. (ii) The deceased was doing business and earned Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants are dependents on the earnings of the deceased. Being dependents, they claim compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against the driver and owner. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, but not the 1st respondent/driver. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1. Whether the accident that occurred on 15.10.2014 at about 05.30 p.m. near Saibaba temple, Tadepalligudem due to rash and negligent driving of bus AP 28 Z 3320 by 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,30,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,30,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/APSRTC. 10. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC and Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants. 11. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that claimants failed to establish the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime bus; that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased; that Tribunal awarded abnormal compensation without considering the material on record and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Yerradoddi Ramchandra Reddy, 2024 (3) ALD 699 (AP) as well pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash v. Divisional Manager, (2011) 14 SCC 639 . 12. Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/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 bus; that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation 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; that even the married and earning son of the deceased being legal representative has a right to get compensation and thereby prays to enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimants before the tribunal. 13. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Birender, AIR Online 2020 SC 21 as well Division Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. E. Suseelamma, 2023 SCC Online AP 1725. 14. 13. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Birender, AIR Online 2020 SC 21 as well Division Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. E. Suseelamma, 2023 SCC Online AP 1725. 14. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the incident? 2. Whether this Court can grant just compensation without any appeal or cross-objections by the claimants? 3. To what relief? 15. 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. 16. As per the testimony of PW-2, who said to be eyewitness to the incident, on 15.10.2014 at about 05.30 p.m., when he was standing near Saibaba Temple, noticed that deceased proceeding on his moped in slow and carefull manner towards Tadepalligudem on Eluru road and at that time the bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 3320 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the moped of the deceased. Even on perusal of Exs.A.1, A.5 and A.6, the incident occurred only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent driver and held responsible for the same. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2. 17. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to support the said contention of contributory negligence. In fact, the 1st respondent, who is best witness to speak what really happened and on whose fault the accident had occurred, did not enter into witness box before the tribunal to say that he is not responsible for the incident. 18. Viewing from any angle, it is crystal clear that 1st respondent driver of the crime bus 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. 19. 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. Thereby, no contributory negligence can be attributed against the deceased. Thus, this point is answered against the appellant. 19. 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. 20. Even 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.” 21. 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. 22. 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.6,000/- 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.72,000/- per annum. 23. As per the decision of the constitution bench of the Apex Court judgment reported 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 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.” 24. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra) in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 25%, where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years........(emphasis supplied) 25. In the present case, as per the above said decision, 25% 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 48 years. After adding 25% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects his income is determined at Rs.90,000/- (Rs.72,000/- + Rs.18,000/-). 26. In the case on hand, 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, from the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.60,000/-. 27. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and Another, 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. 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 capitalizing 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......” 28. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e. 48 years is 13. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.7,80,000/- (Rs.60,000/- x 13). Apart from that as per the Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra) an amount Rs.40,000/- towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection are awarded. In total the claim petitioner is entitled compensation of Rs.8,50,000/-. The remaining heads as claimed and awarded by the Tribunal are not applicable to the present case on hand, in view of the above pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 29. 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 after deduction of Income Tax Rs. 72,000/- per annum 2 25% of above (1) to be added as future prospects [Rs. 72,000/- + Rs. 18,000/-] = Rs. 29. 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 after deduction of Income Tax Rs. 72,000/- per annum 2 25% of above (1) to be added as future prospects [Rs. 72,000/- + Rs. 18,000/-] = Rs. 90,000/- 3 1/3rd to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased Rs. 60,000/- 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 13 [Rs. 60,000/- x 13) = Rs. 7,80,000/- 5 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- 6 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation awarded (Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs. 8,50,000/- 30. It is the also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the 2nd claimant being married son is not entitled to any compensation. On this point, it is the categorical observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Birender case (referred to supra) that “.......even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only.......” (Emphasis supplied) 31. In view of the settled law, the 2nd claimant being married son of the deceased is also entitled to claim compensation for the death of deceased in the motor vehicle accident. Thereby, the above contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has no legs to stand. 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.8,30,000/- to Rs.8,50,000/-. 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 order 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 filed by the appellant/APSRTC is liable for dismissal. 34. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. 1 and 2, the order 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 filed by the appellant/APSRTC 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.8,30,000/- to Rs.8,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, with proportionate costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization against driver and owner of the crime bus. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- as well 2nd petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and they are entitled to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. 35. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 36. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.