ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. [Civil Misc. Appeal No. 321/2014] 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/non-claimant (Insurer) of the offending vehicle under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 23.12.2013 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.204/2007 : Gyam Devi v. Pratap @ Rampratap & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition preferred by the claimant/respondent No.1 herein, awarded compensation in favour of claimant/respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs.3,23,800/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimant Smt. Gyan Devi filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.32,20,000/- on account of death of her son, who list his life in the accident, which took place on 28.02.2007. In the claim petitions, it was inter-alia stated that on 28.02.2007, Ratanlal, son of the claimant Smt. Gyan Devi was coming in the offending vehicle Canter bearing registration number RJ-31-G-0015 while sitting in the nearby seat of the driver. The said vehicle was being driven by its driver/respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and when the said vehicle reached Rawatsar Lakhuwali Road at Hanif Mohd’s Dhani, at 11:30 pm, the vehicle collided to a tree, as a result of which Ratanlal and the driver of the offending vehicle, sustained injuries. The injured were immediately removed to hospital, however, despite providing treatment to Ratanlal for twenty days, he ultimately expired. In the claim petition preferred by Smt. Gyan Devi, it was stated that her son was a salesman and was earning Rs.7000/- per month. An FIR (50/2007) of the said accident was lodged at Police Station Rawatsar, Hanumangarh for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, wherein after investigation, Challan was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle in the competent court. 3. Thereafter summons were issued to the non-claimants and after service, non-claimant No.2/driver of the offending vehicle filed his reply stating therein that he was the driver of the offending vehicle (RJ-31-G-0015) and on account of technical fault the vehicle, it collided the tree and there was no fault on his part. 3. Thereafter summons were issued to the non-claimants and after service, non-claimant No.2/driver of the offending vehicle filed his reply stating therein that he was the driver of the offending vehicle (RJ-31-G-0015) and on account of technical fault the vehicle, it collided the tree and there was no fault on his part. On behalf of non-claimant/owner, Kundanmal reply was filed alleging therein that the registered owner of the vehicle was Hemendra Gupta and since the vehicle was insured with insurance company, therefore, for payment of compensation, the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation. On behalf of nonclaimant No.3/appellant herein, it was stated that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective licence. It was further stated that since the vehicle was a transport vehicle and the deceased was travelling in the vehicle, for which no extra premium was charged, therefore, it was not covered. On behalf of non-claimant/registered owner of the vehicle, it was alleged that he sold the vehicle to one Ravindra Singh by way of an agreement to sale and the possession of the vehicle was handed over to Ravindra Singh in the year 2000 and, thereafter the vehicle was sold to Kundanmal (non-claimant No.2) and thus he has unnecessarily been dragged in the lis. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, which inter-alia reads as under: 1- vk;k dsUVj ua- vkjts&31&th&0015 ds pkyd foi{kh la- 1 izrki mQZ jkeizrki us fnukad 28-02-2007 dks mDr okgu dks ykijokgh ls pyk;k] ftlls mDr ds.Vj esa cSBs jruyky dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ\ 2- vk;k mDr nq?kZVuk mDr okgu pkyd foi{kh la-1 izrki mQZ jkeizrki mDr okgu ds Lokeh vizkFkhZ la-2 ds fu;kstu esa dk;Zjr gksrs gq, mlh ds fgrkFkZ dk;Z dj jgk Fkk\ 3- vk;k foi{khx.k vius fyf[kr dFku esa of.kZr vk/kkjks ij gtkZuk vnk;xh ds nkf;Ro ls eqDr fd;s tk ldrs gS\ 4- vk;k izkFkhZ i{k vius nkos esa vafdr jkf'k ;k vU; dksbZ U;k;lEer jkf’k ik ldrk gS ;fn gka rks izkFkhZ i{k fdruh jkf’k fdl foi{kh ls fdl izdkj izkIr dj ldrk gS\ 5- vuqrks"k ** 5. The claimant and the non-claimants led their evidence. Claimant Gyan Devi examined herself as AW.1 and also examined AW.2 Rameshwarlal, AW.3 Pratap Puri and in documentary evidence, she exhibited 83 documents. The claimant and the non-claimants led their evidence. Claimant Gyan Devi examined herself as AW.1 and also examined AW.2 Rameshwarlal, AW.3 Pratap Puri and in documentary evidence, she exhibited 83 documents. On behalf of non-claimants NAW.1 Jagdish Chandra Kapoor, NAW.2 Hemendra Gupta, NAW.3 Jagjeet Singh were examined and in documentary evidence various documents were exhibited. 6. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence led by the parties vide its judgment and award dated 23.12.2013 proceeded to partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,23,800/- in favour of claimant/respondent No.1 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and the liability of paying the compensation was fastened upon the insurance company i.e. appellant/non-claimant. 7. Being aggrieved by impugned judgment and award dated 23.12.2013, the appellant/non-claimant National Insurance Company Limited, has preferred the instance appeals. 8. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant Insurance Company vehemently argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective licence and thus the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the appellant/non-claimant. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant further argued that the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle and the same could not be used as passenger vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there was no coverage of a passenger in the vehicle and the deceased was travelling in the goods carriage vehicle as a gratuitous passengers. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant further submits that there was violation of conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the appellant has wrongly been held liable to pay the compensation. Learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant further submits that no payment of insurance premium was charged for authorized/unauthorized passenger in the policy and thus appellant cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in support of contentions relied upon following judgments: 1. Ranjana Prakash & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr. : (2011) 14 SCC 639 . 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Phooli Devi & Ors. : S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4/2001 decided on 16.01.2024. 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi & Ors. : S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.542/2003 decided on 31.01.2024. 10. Ranjana Prakash & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr. : (2011) 14 SCC 639 . 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Phooli Devi & Ors. : S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4/2001 decided on 16.01.2024. 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi & Ors. : S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.542/2003 decided on 31.01.2024. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant thus prayed that the impugned judgments passed by the learned Tribunal be modified while exonerating the appellant from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimant. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant, however, he submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, inasmuch as it has not considered the future prospectus and the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is 11, whereas looking to the age of the age of the deceased i.e. 26 years, in view of judgment passed in the case of Sarla Verm v. Delhi Transport Corporation : 2009 (2) TAC 677 SC, appropriate multiplier ought to have been applied and the compensation deserves enhancement. In support of arguments, learned counsel for the claimant on the judgment passed in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi & Ors. v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar & Ors. : 2015 (4) SCC 237 . 12. Controverting the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the respondent/claimant, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimant and submitted that in any case the claimant seeks enhancement of the compensation, the claimant has to file ether cross objection or file separate misc. appeal against the judgment and award and the prayer for enhancement of the compensation in the instant appeal, cannot be adhered. 13. None appears on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4. 14. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record and the case laws cited at bar. 15. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal after considering the material available before it, has rightly found that the nonclaimant/ driver of the offending vehicle was having a licence to ply light motor vehicle and so also premium was charged by the insurance company for two passengers. 15. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal after considering the material available before it, has rightly found that the nonclaimant/ driver of the offending vehicle was having a licence to ply light motor vehicle and so also premium was charged by the insurance company for two passengers. Thus in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has rightly negated the plea raised by the appellant/non-claimant with respect to violation of the conditions of the policy viz. driver of the offending not having the valid and effective licence and that the requisite premium was not paid by owner. The Tribunal has rightly held that the vehicle in question being a light transport vehicle was plied by its driver, who was having a valid licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle/Canter. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that there was no violation of the conditions of the policy, as alleged by the non-claimant insurance company. 16. Insofar as the contention that no extra premium was charged is concerned, suffice it to observe that the learned Tribunal has observed that premium for two passengers was charged by the insurance company in the policy, therefore, the appellant insurance company has rightly been held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 17. I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded to the claimant. The answer to the question would be negative as the question involved is squarely covered by judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Ranjana Prakash (supra), wherein the Apex Court held as infra: - “6….. Therefore, in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the appellant can certainly put forth a contention that if 30% is to be deducted from the income for whatsoever reason, 30% should also be added towards future prospects, so that the compensation awarded is not reduced. The fact that the claimants did not independently challenge the award will not therefore come in the way of their defending the compensation awarded, on other grounds. It would only mean that in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the claimants will not be entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation by urging any new ground, in the absence of any cross-appeal. [emphasis applied] 7. It would only mean that in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the claimants will not be entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation by urging any new ground, in the absence of any cross-appeal. [emphasis applied] 7. This principle also flows from Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enables an appellate court to pass any order which ought to have been passed by the trial court and to make such further or other order as the case may require, even if the respondent had not filed any appeal or cross- objections. This power is entrusted to the appellate court to enable it to do complete justice between the parties. Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code can however be pressed into service to make the award more effective or maintain the award on other grounds or to make the other parties to litigation to share the benefits or the liability, but cannot be invoked to get a larger or higher relief. For example, where the claimants seeks compensation against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle and the Tribunal makes the award only against the owner, on an appeal by the owner challenging the quantum, the appellate court can make the insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, along with the owner, even though the claimants had not challenged the non-grant of relief against the insurer. Be that as it may. 8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by owner/insurer for reduction. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.” [emphasis applied] The ratio decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash (supra) has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bhagwati Devi & Ors. (supra) while deciding CMA No.542/2003 vide judgment dated 31.01.2024. 18. It is an admitted position that the claimant has neither filed cross objection nor filed a separate appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation, therefore, the plea sought to be raised by the claimant for enhancing the compensation awarded in the instant appeal, cannot be countenanced. So far as ratio decided in the case of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi (supra) relied upon by the claimant/respondent No.1 is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court looking to the fact that the claimant was a poor person and had suffered disability to a great extent, exercised the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is not the case here. Insofar as the present case is concerned, in view of dictum laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnaja Prakash (supra), this Court is of the opinion that such power cannot be exercised by this Court and thus the plea sought to be raised by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation is rejected. 19. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal lacks merit and the judgment and award impugned dated 23.12.2013 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh does not call for any interference. The misc. appeal, is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Stay Application and pending application(s), if any, are also dismissed. [Civil Misc. Appeal No. 322/2014] 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/non-claimant (Insurer) of the offending vehicle under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 23.12.2013 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.123/2008 : Pratap @ Rampratap & Ors. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/non-claimant (Insurer) of the offending vehicle under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 23.12.2013 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.123/2008 : Pratap @ Rampratap & Ors. v. Kundanlal & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petitions preferred by the claimant awarded in favour of claimant/respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs.25,805/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimant/respondent No.1 filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,18,000/- on account of injuries suffered by him an accident, which took place on 28.02.2007. In the claim petitions, it was inter-alia stated that on 28.02.2007, the claimant/respondent No.1 was plying the offending vehicle Canter bearing registration number RJ-31-G- 0015. The vehicle on account of technical fault collided to a tree, as a result he and one Ratanlal sustained injuries. In the claim petition claimant Pratap @ Rampratap claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5,18,000/- on account of injuries suffered by him in the said accident. It was inter-alia alleged by claimant was in the employment of Kundanlal and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. He sustained fracture in his right leg. FIR (50/2007 of the said accident was lodged at Police Station Rawatsar, Hanumangarh for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, wherein after investigation, Challan was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle in the competent court. 3. Thereafter summons were issued to the non-claimants and after service, non-claimant/owner of the offending vehicle filed his reply and accepted that the claimant- Praptap @ Rampratap, was under his employement and was the driver of the offending vehicle (RJ-31-G-0015). It was further stated that at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with insurance company and, therefore, it was liable to pay compensation. On behalf of nonclaimant No.2= Hemendra Gupta, it was alleged that he sold the vehicle to one Ravindra Singh by way of an agreement to sale and the possession of the vehicle was handed over to Ravindra Singh in the year 2000 and, thereafter the vehicle was sold to Kundanmal (non-claimant No.2) and thus he has unnecessarily been impleaded as party. On behalf of non-claimant No.3/appellant herein, it was stated that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective licence. It was further stated that there was only third party insurance as a transport vehicle. It was further stated that since the vehicle was a transport vehicle, and the deceased was travelling in the vehicle, for which no extra premium was charged, therefore, it was not covered. It was further alleged that the accident took place due to own fault of the claimant. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, which inter-alia reads as under: ^^1- vk;k fnukad 28-02-2007 dks okgu la- vkjts&31&th&0015 ds iz;ksx ds nkSjku gqbZ nq?kZVuk esa izrki mQZ jkeizrki ds pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ\ 2- vk;k fnukad 28-02-2007 dks nq?kZ uk ds le; izrki mQZ jkeizrki vizkFkhZ la- 1 o 2 ds fgrkFkZ okgu la vkjts&31&th&0015 dks pyk jgk Fkk\ 3- vk;k foi{kh chek dEiuh dh vkifRr;ksa dk D;k izHkko gS\ 4- vk;k nkosnkjku Dyse esa fdruh jkf"k o fdlls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 5- vuqrks"k 5. The claimant and the non-claimants led their evidence. Claimant examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited 10 documents. On behalf of non-claimants NAW.1 Jagdish Chandra Kapoor, NAW.2 Hemendra Gupta, NAW.3 Jagjeet Singh were examined and in documentary evidence various documents were exhibited. 6. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence led by the parties vide its judgment and award dated 23.12.2013 proceeded to partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.25,805/- in favour of claimant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. The liability of paying the compensation was fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and severally. 7. Being aggrieved by impugned judgment and award dated 23.12.2013, the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited has preferred the instance appeals. 8. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective licence and thus the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon all the nonclaimants jointly and severally including the appellant/nonclaimant. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant further argued that the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle and the same could not be used as passenger vehicle. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant further argued that the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle and the same could not be used as passenger vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there was no coverage of a passenger in the vehicle and the deceased was travelling in the goods carriage vehicle as a gratuitous passengers. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant further submits that there was violation of conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the appellant has wrongly been held liable to pay the compensation. Learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant further submits that no payment of insurance premium was charged for authorized/unauthorized passenger in the policy and thus appellant cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in support of contentions relied upon following judgments: 1. Ranjana Prakash & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr. : (2011) 14 SCC 639 . 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Phooli Devi & Ors. : S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4/2001 decided on 16.01.2024. 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi & Ors. : S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.542/2003 decided on 31.01.2024. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant thus prayed that the impugned judgments passed by the learned Tribunal be modified while exonerating the appellant from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimant. 11. None appears on behalf of respondents. 12. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record and the case laws cited at bar. 13. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal after considering the material available before it, has rightly found that the nonclaimant/ driver of the offending vehicle was having a licence to ply light motor vehicle and so also premium was charged by the insurance company for two passengers. Thus in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has rightly negated the plea raised by the appellant/non-claimant with respect to violation of the conditions of the policy viz. driver of the offending not having the valid and effective licence and that the requisite premium was not paid by owner. The Tribunal has rightly held that the vehicle in question being a light transport vehicle was plied by its driver, who was having a valid licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle/Canter. driver of the offending not having the valid and effective licence and that the requisite premium was not paid by owner. The Tribunal has rightly held that the vehicle in question being a light transport vehicle was plied by its driver, who was having a valid licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle/Canter. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that there was no violation of the conditions of the policy, as alleged by the non-claimant insurance company. 14. Insofar as the contention that no extra premium was charged is concerned, suffice it to observe that the learned Tribunal has observed that premium for two passengers was charged by the insurance company in the policy, therefore, the appellant insurance company including other non-claimants has rightly been held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 15. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal lacks merit and the judgment and award impugned dated 23.12.2013 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh does not call for any interference. The misc. appeal, is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Stay Application and pending application(s), if any, are also dismissed.