JUDGMENT : S.Sounthar, J. These Appeals are filed by the insurer of Mini Bus involved in a road accident that had occurred on 22.10.2014. 2. The first respondent in all these appeals is the claimant in the respective claim petitions. The second respondent in all these appeals is the owner of the Mini bus involved in the accident, in which the claimants travelled as passengers. The appellant herein is the insurer of the Mini Bus involved in the accident. The 3 rd respondent is the registered owner of the lorry/another vehicle involved in the accident. The 4 th respondent is the policy holder of the lorry. The 5 th respondent is the insurer of the lorry. 3. It is the case of the claimant/first respondent in all the appeals that they travelled in a Mini Bus belonged to the second respondent and the said vehicle was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry belonged to the 3 rd respondent insured with the 5 th respondent. As a result of the accident, the claimant in all the cases sustained grievous injuries. The claim petitions were filed by them seeking compensation against the owner and insurer of the Mini Bus as well as owner and insurer of the lorry involved in the accident. 4. The claim petitions were resisted by the appellant/insurer of the Mini Bus by denying the age, occupation and monthly income of the respective claimants. The appellant also denied the manner of accident as described in the claim petitions and sought for dismissal of the original petitions. 5. The respondents 4 and 5 insured and insurer of the lorry filed counter and opposed the claim petitions on the ground that the accident had not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The claim petitions were also resisted by denying the age, income and nature of injury as mentioned in the claim petitions. 6. Before the Tribunal, totally ten claim petitions were filed by the passengers injured in the very same accident, who travelled in the Mini Bus and all the claim petitions were tried together as they were connected with each other. Before the Tribunal, the respective claimants were examined as PW.1 to PW.10. The claimants also examined five other witnesses as PW.11 to PW.15, including a Doctor, who was examined as PW.12. Before the Tribunal, the respective claimants were examined as PW.1 to PW.10. The claimants also examined five other witnesses as PW.11 to PW.15, including a Doctor, who was examined as PW.12. On behalf of the claimants, 54 documents were marked in support of their claim. On behalf of the respondents, official of the appellant and the 5 th respondent/Insurance Company were examined as RW.1 and RW.2 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2. 7. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that both the drivers of the Mini Bus and lorry contributed to the accident and fixed 75% negligence on the part of the driver of the Mini Bus and 25% negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The amount payable to the respective claimants in the above appeals were quantified at Rs.13,25,000/-, Rs.9,00,000/-, Rs.9,10,000/-, Rs.17,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer of the Mini Bus has filed these appeals. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing 75% negligence on the part of the driver of the Mini Bus without properly appreciating the evidence available on record. He further submitted that in the absence of any evidence to show that the injury suffered by the claimants would interfere with their respective avocation, the Tribunal committed an error in adopting multiplier method in all these cases. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimants in all the appeals tried to sustain the award by submitting that on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the contributory negligence was on the part of the driver of the Mini Bus and hence fixed 75% negligence on him. He further submitted that all the claimants in the respective Original Petitions sustained grievous injuries which would directly affect their avocation and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in adopting multiplier method in calculating the compensation. 10. It is seen from the evidence let in before the Tribunal, the lorry insured with the 5 th respondent was parked on the edge of the road and Mini Bus dashed against the parked vehicle. All the claimants who were examined as PW.1 to PW.10 uniformly deposed that Mini Bus was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry. 11. All the claimants who were examined as PW.1 to PW.10 uniformly deposed that Mini Bus was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry. 11. It is seen from Ex.P1-First Information Report, the criminal case was registered only against the driver of the Mini Bus. The Deputy Manager of the 5 th respondent/Insurance Company, insurer of the lorry, who was examined as RW.2, clearly admitted that the lorry was parked in the road portion. Therefore, the Tribunal observed that parking lorry in the road portion of the National Highway, without parking it in the area ear-marked for parking vehicle per se would amount to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and hence he had also contributed to the accident. Even, if the vehicle is parked on the road portion, had the driver of the Mini Bus driven the vehicle slowly and steadily, he could have avoided the accident. Having regard to the fact, the Mini Bus was dashed against parked lorry, this Court comes to the conclusion that negligence on the part of the driver of the Mini Bus is much more than the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. On careful consideration of the evidence of PW.1 to PW.10, contents of FIR and the evidence of RW.2, this Court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal was justified in fixing 75% negligence on the part of the Mini Bus and 25% negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. 12. In order to prove the nature of injury and disability, the claimants examined PW.12-Doctor. In order to prove the avocation, the claimants examined PW.13 who was representative of the employer of the claimants. It is also seen that PW.12 did not treat the claimants and he issued disability certificate only by examining the claimants after sometime. Insofar as the claimant in CMA.No.3201 of 2021 is concerned, PW.12-Doctor issued disability certificate and the same was marked as Ex.P53. He issued disability certificate fixing disability at 53.1%. A perusal of the medical documents and disability certificate would indicate that the claimant in CMA.No.3201 of 2021 suffered fracture in left femur bone. PW.13, in his evidence deposed that the claimant in CMA.No.3201 of 2021 was working as a Manager in A.P.R Traders and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He issued disability certificate fixing disability at 53.1%. A perusal of the medical documents and disability certificate would indicate that the claimant in CMA.No.3201 of 2021 suffered fracture in left femur bone. PW.13, in his evidence deposed that the claimant in CMA.No.3201 of 2021 was working as a Manager in A.P.R Traders and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The responsibility of the Manager is supervisory in nature and there is no necessity for him to do any manual work. In these circumstances, admittedly, there is nothing on record to suggest that the claimant in CMA.No.3201 of 2021 suffered disability which would interfere with his occupation. In the absence of concrete evidence to suggest that the injury suffered by the claimant interfered with his occupation, the Tribunal without giving any reason proceeded to adopt multiplier method, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Since the claimants suffered 53.1% of disability, this Court proceeds to grant compensation on percentage basis. The accident had occurred in the year 2014, following the judgment of the Division Bench in Future General India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manivannan in CMA.No.3334 of 2021, dated 15.06.2022 , this Court decides to grant Rs.4,000/- per percentage of disability. Therefore, the claimant in CMA.No.3201 of 2021 is entitled to Rs.2,12,040/- (53.1xRs.4,000) under the head disability. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head medical expenses is based on the documents and hence, the same is affirmed. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads like pain and suffering, extra nourishment, attender charges and transport expenses are reasonable and hence they are affirmed. This Court feels it would be appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Taking into consideration the nature of injury suffered by the claimant, he would have been kept out of work for atleast three months. Therefore, Rs.36,000/- (Rs.12,000x3) is granted under the head loss of income during treatment period. In all, the claimant is entitled to Rs.5,86,200/-. 13. In view of the discussions made earlier, the common award passed by the Tribunal, out of which, CMA.No.3201 of 2021 is modified as follows: S.No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) 1. Disability/Loss of earning capacity Rs.10,41,768/- Rs.2,12,400/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.1,67,800/- Rs.1,67,800/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Extra Nourishment Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 5. Attender charges Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 6. Disability/Loss of earning capacity Rs.10,41,768/- Rs.2,12,400/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.1,67,800/- Rs.1,67,800/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Extra Nourishment Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 5. Attender charges Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 6. Transport expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of amenities - Rs.40,000/- 8. Loss of income during treatment period for three months - Rs.36,000/- Total Rs.13,39,568/- Rs.5,86,200/- 14. In view of the discussions made earlier, the claimant is entitled to reduced sum of Rs.5,86,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the reduced award. 15. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal [CMA.No.3201 of 2021] is partly allowed, the award amount is reduced to Rs.5,86,200/-. Out of the above said amount, the appellant is liable to pay Rs.4,39,650/- towards 75% of the contributory negligence and the 5 th respondent is liable to pay Rs.1,46,550/- towards 25% of the contributory negligence. 16. As far as, the CMA.No.3204 of 2021 is concerned, PW.13 in his evidence had stated that claimant was working as a Manager, APR Traders, Tirupur. In the disability certificate issued by PW.12-Doctor which was marked as Ex.P51, the disability was fixed at 36.6%. The medical documents produced by the claimant would indicate that he suffered fracture in the right hand. Since the claimant is working in a Managerial Job, she is not expected to do any manual work. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the fracture injury suffered by the claimant would interfere with her avocation, therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in applying multiplier method, in the absence of any evidence to suggest that the disability suffered would interfere with her avocation. Therefore, this Court decides to calculate the compensation under the head disability on percentage basis and fix the same at Rs.1,46,400/- (Rs.4,000x36.6%). The amount awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads namely pain and suffering, transport expenses are reasonable and hence they are affirmed. This Court feels it would be appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Taking into consideration the nature of injury suffered by the claimant, she would have been kept out of her work for atleast three months. Therefore, she is entitled to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.12,000x3) under the head loss of income during treatment period and the same is granted. In all, the claimant is entitled to Rs.4,01,200/- . 17. Taking into consideration the nature of injury suffered by the claimant, she would have been kept out of her work for atleast three months. Therefore, she is entitled to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.12,000x3) under the head loss of income during treatment period and the same is granted. In all, the claimant is entitled to Rs.4,01,200/- . 17. In view of the discussions made earlier, the award passed by the Tribunal, out of which, CMA.No.3204 of 2021 arises is modified as follows: S.No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) 1. Disability/Loss of earning capacity Rs.7,25,760/- Rs.1,46,400/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.48,800/- Rs.48,800/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Extra Nourishment Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 5. Attender charges Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 6. Transport expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of amenities - Rs.40,000/- 8. Loss of income during treatment period for three months - Rs.36,000/- Total Rs.9,04,560/- Rs.4,01,200/- 18. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to reduced sum of Rs.4,01,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the reduced award. 19. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, the award amount is reduced to Rs.4,01,200/-. Out of the above said amount, the appellant is liable to pay Rs.3,00,900/- towards 75% of the contributory negligence and the 5 th respondent is liable to pay Rs.1,00,300/- towards 25% of the contributory negligence. 20. As far as CMA.No.3211 of 2021 is concerned, PW.12- Doctor issued disability certificate fixing disability at 37%. The claimant who was examined as PW.5 in her evidence deposed that she was employed as a helper in D.I.Tex, Tiruppur. The medical document, disability certificate etc., produced by the claimant and the evidence of PW.12 would indicate that the claimant suffered fracture of right femur bone and she was treated with internal plate fixation. However, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that the disability suffered by her interfered with her occupation. When there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the disability affected the occupation of the claimant, the Tribunal ought not have applied multiplier method. Therefore, this Court proceeds to grant Rs.4,000/- per percentage of disability and quantify the compensation accordingly. The claimant is entitled to Rs.1,48,000/- (Rs.4,000/-x37) under the head disability. The amount of Rs.90,300/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head medical expenses is based on medical bills produced by the claimant and hence the same is confirmed. Therefore, this Court proceeds to grant Rs.4,000/- per percentage of disability and quantify the compensation accordingly. The claimant is entitled to Rs.1,48,000/- (Rs.4,000/-x37) under the head disability. The amount of Rs.90,300/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head medical expenses is based on medical bills produced by the claimant and hence the same is confirmed. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering, extra nourishment, attender charges and transport expenses are reasonable and hence they are affirmed. Having regard to the nature of the injury suffered by the claimant, this Court feels it would be appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of amenities. The claimant would have been kept out of her work for atleast three months. Therefore, Rs.36,000/- (Rs.12,000x3) is granted under the head loss of income during treatment period. In all, the claimant is entitled to Rs.4,44,300/-. 21. In view of the discussions made earlier, the award passed by the Tribunal, out of which, CMA.No.3211 of 2021 is modified as follows: S.No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) 1. Disability/earning capacity Rs.6,99,300/- Rs.1,48,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.90,300/- Rs.90,300/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Extra Nourishment Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 5. Attender charges Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 6. Transport expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of amenities - Rs.40,000/- 8. Loss of income during treatment period - Rs.36,000/- Total Rs.9,19,600/- Rs.4,44,300/- 22. In view of the discussions made earlier, the claimant is entitled to reduced sum of Rs.4,44,300/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the reduced award. 23. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, the award amount is reduced to Rs.4,44,300/-/-. Out of the above said amount, the appellant is liable to pay Rs.3,33,225/- towards 75% of the contributory negligence and the 5 th respondent is liable to pay Rs.1,11,075/- towards 25% of the contributory negligence. 24. As far as CMA.No.3221 of 2021 is concerned, as per the medical evidence and disability certificate issued to the claimant, he suffered fracture in right femur bone and tibia. He underwent surgery and his fracture was treated by internal fixation. PW.12-Doctor, who examined the claimant issued Ex.P49-disability certificate fixing the disability at 47.7%. The claimant, who was examined as PW.7 deposed that he was working as a Senior Merchandiser, Geena Garments, Tirupur. He underwent surgery and his fracture was treated by internal fixation. PW.12-Doctor, who examined the claimant issued Ex.P49-disability certificate fixing the disability at 47.7%. The claimant, who was examined as PW.7 deposed that he was working as a Senior Merchandiser, Geena Garments, Tirupur. Therefore, it is clear that the nature of claimant's job is supervisory and he will not engage in any manual work. Further, there is no other evidence available on record to suggest that the nature of injury suffered by claimant interfered with his avocation in any way. In these circumstances, the Tribunal committed an error in applying multiplier method without any discussions and the same has to be interfered with. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury and the avocation of the claimant, this Court proceeds to fix compensation under the head disability on percentage basis. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,90,800/- (Rs.4000x47.7) under the head disability. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,68,500/- under the head medical expenses and the same is based on medical documents produced by the claimant. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads namely pain and suffering, extra nourishment, attender charges and transport expenses etc., are reasonable and hence affirmed. Having regard to the nature of the injury suffered by the claimant, this Court decides to grant Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of amenities. The claimant would have been kept out of work for atleast three months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.36,000/- (Rs.12,000x3) is fixed under the head loss of income during treatment period. Therefore, in all, the claimant is entitled to Rs.5,65,300/- 25. In view of the discussions made earlier, the common award passed by the Tribunal, out of which, CMA.No.3221 of 2021 is modified as follows: S.No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) 1. Disability/earning capacity Rs.14,29,740/- Rs.1,90,800/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.1,68,500/- Rs.1,68,500/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Extra Nourishment Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 5. Attender charges Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 6. Transport expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of amenities - Rs.40,000/- 8. Loss of income during treatment period - Rs.36,000/- Total Rs.17,28,240/- Rs.5,65,300/- 26. In view of the discussions made earlier, the claimant is entitled to reduced sum of Rs.5,65,300/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the reduced award. 27. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, the award amount is reduced to Rs.5,65,300/-. Loss of income during treatment period - Rs.36,000/- Total Rs.17,28,240/- Rs.5,65,300/- 26. In view of the discussions made earlier, the claimant is entitled to reduced sum of Rs.5,65,300/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the reduced award. 27. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, the award amount is reduced to Rs.5,65,300/-. Out of the above said amount, the appellant is liable to pay Rs.4,23,975/- towards 75% of the contributory negligence and the 5 th respondent is liable to pay Rs.1,41,325/- towards 25% of the contributory negligence. 28. In CMA.No.3223 of 2021, the claimant suffered fracture in the right maxilla bone, it is stated that since there is mal-union of the bone, he has got pain in his jaw. The medical witness PW.12, who examined the claimant issued disability certificate Ex.P45 fixing the disability at 25%. The claimant in his evidence deposed that he was engaged in self business under the name and style of Tiruppur A.I.Traders and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. From his evidence, it is clear that he is not doing any manual job and fracture injury suffered by him in his face would not interfere with his avocation. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not have applied multiplier method without any evidence to show that the injury suffered by the claimant interfered with his avocation. Hence, the same is set aside. Having regard to the nature of the injury suffered by the claimant, this Court decides to grant compensation under the head disability on percentage basis. The claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- under the head disability (Rs.4,000/- x25%). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.89,490/- under the head medical expenses based on the medical bills produced by the claimant, therefore, it is affirmed. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering, extra nourishment, attender charges and transport expenses are reasonable and hence they are affirmed. Having regard to the nature of the injury suffered by the claimant, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of amenities. The claimant would have been kept out of work for atleast three months. Therefore, Rs.36,000/- (Rs.12,000x3) is fixed under the head loss of earning capacity. In all, the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,95,490/-. 29. The claimant would have been kept out of work for atleast three months. Therefore, Rs.36,000/- (Rs.12,000x3) is fixed under the head loss of earning capacity. In all, the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,95,490/-. 29. In view of the discussions made earlier, the common award passed by the Tribunal, out of which, CMA.No.3223 of 2021 is modified as follows: S.No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) 1. Disability/earning capacity Rs.8,19,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.89,490/- Rs.89,490/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Extra Nourishment Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 5. Attender charges Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 6. Transport expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of amenities - Rs.40,000/- 8. Loss of income during treatment period - Rs.36,000/- Total Rs.10,38,490/- Rs.3,95,490/- 30. In view of the discussions made earlier, the claimant is entitled to reduced sum of Rs.3,95,490/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the reduced award. 31. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, the award amount is reduced to Rs.3,95,490/-. Out of the above said amount, the appellant is liable to pay Rs.2,96,618/- towards 75% of the contributory negligence and the 5 th respondent is liable to pay Rs.98,872/- towards 25% of the contributory negligence. 32. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that the 5 th respondent insurer has not challenged the award fixing multiplier method and hence 25% of the award passed against the 5 th respondent has attained finality. Therefore, after recovering 25% share of the 5 th respondent from the original award, if any amount is payable by the appellant towards its share as determined under this appeal only is recoverable from the appellant. Now, in the appeal filed by the insurer of the Mini Bus/appellant herein, this Court came to the conclusion that the Tribunal erroneously adopted multiplier method, when there was no evidence available on record to come to the conclusion that injury suffered by respective claimants interfered with their avocation. When the decision of the Tribunal to apply multiplier method is interfered with in the appeal filed by the insurer of the Mini Bus, the said findings of the Tribunal, insofar as the share of the 5 th respondent is concerned, cannot be allowed to stand. When the decision of the Tribunal to apply multiplier method is interfered with in the appeal filed by the insurer of the Mini Bus, the said findings of the Tribunal, insofar as the share of the 5 th respondent is concerned, cannot be allowed to stand. The conclusion arrived at by this Court, with regard to the adoption of percentage basis for calculating compensation under the head disability cannot be reconciled with the finding of the Tribunal, insofar as unchallenged portion of the award. Exactly in the situation like this, this Court is entitled to exercise its power under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC and modify the decree insofar as the unchallenged portion is concerned. In this regard reference may be had to Choudhary Sahu v. State of Bihar reported in 1982 (1) SCC 232 . The relevant observation of the Apex Court reads as follows: "9. Reliance has been placed on Nirmala Bala Ghose v. Balai Chand Ghose [ AIR 1965 SC 1874 : (1965) 3 SCR 550 ] . This Court dealing with the scope of Order 41 Rule 33, observed as follows: “The rule is undoubtedly expressed in terms which are wide, but it has to be applied with discretion, and to cases where interference in favour of the appellant necessitates interference also with a decree which has by acceptance or acquiescence become final so as to enable the Court to adjust the rights of the parties. Where in an appeal the Court reaches a conclusion which is inconsistent with the opinion of the Court appealed from and in adjusting the right claimed by the appellant it is necessary to grant relief to a person who has not appealed, the power conferred by Order 41 Rule 33 may properly be invoked. The rule, however, does not confer an unrestricted right to re-open decrees which have become final merely because the appellate Court does not agree with the opinion of the Court appealed from”. 10. In the case cited above, there were two sets of defendants in the suit and in substance two decrees, though corelated, were passed. One of the decrees could stand apart from the other. One set of defendants were two deities. The suit was decreed against them. 10. In the case cited above, there were two sets of defendants in the suit and in substance two decrees, though corelated, were passed. One of the decrees could stand apart from the other. One set of defendants were two deities. The suit was decreed against them. They did not go up in appeal nor did they take part in the proceedings either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court, although they were impleaded as respondents. The other set of defendants, Nirmala, sought to invoke the powers of the appellate court under Order 41 Rule 33 to pass a decree in favour of a party not appealing so as to give the latter a benefit which she had not claimed. In such a situation this Court observed: “When a party allows a decree of the Court of first instance to become final, by not appealing against the decree, it would not be open to another party to the litigation, whose rights are otherwise not affected by the decree, to invoke the powers of the appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 33, to pass a decree in favour of the party not appealing so as to give the latter a benefit which he has not claimed. Order 41 Rule 33 is primarily intended to confer power upon the appellate Court to do justice by granting relief to a party who has not appealed, when refusing to do so, would result in making inconsistent, contradictory or unworkable orders”. 11. Counsel for the State of Bihar, on the other hand, referred to Giani Ram v. Ramji Lal [ (1969) 1 SCC 813 : (1969) 3 SCR 944 ] . While construing the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33, this Court observed: “The expression “which ought to have been passed” means “what ought in law to have been passed”. If the Appellate Court is of the view that any decree which ought in law to have been passed was in fact not passed by the subordinate court, it may pass or make such further or other decree or order as the justice of the case may require”. 12. The object of this Rule is to avoid contradictory and inconsistent decisions on the same questions in the same suit. 12. The object of this Rule is to avoid contradictory and inconsistent decisions on the same questions in the same suit. As the power under this rule is in derogation of the general principle that a party cannot avoid a decree against him without filing an appeal or cross-objection, it must be exercised with care and caution. The Rule does not confer an unrestricted right to re-open decrees which have become final merely because the appellate court does not agree with the opinion of the court appealed from. 13. Ordinarily, the power conferred by this Rule will be confined to those cases where as a result of interference in favour of the appellant further interference with the decree of the lower court is rendered necessary in order to adjust the rights of the parties according to justice, equity and good conscience. While exercising the power under this Rule the court should not lose sight of the other provisions of the Code itself nor the provisions of other laws, viz. the law of limitation or the law of court fees etc. 33. In Venukuri Krishna Reddi v. Kota Ramireddi reported in AIR 1954 Mad 848 , a Division Bench of this Court, while considering scope of power available under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, observed as follows: "10. Though Order 41, Rule 33 confers wide and unlimited jurisdiction on courts to pass a decree in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal, there are, however, certain well defined principles in accordance with which that jurisdiction should be exercised. Normally a party who is aggrieved by a decree should, if he seeks to escape from its operation, appeal against it within the time allowed after complying with the requirements of law. Where he fails to do so, no relief should ordinarily be given to nun under Order 41, Rule 33. Normally a party who is aggrieved by a decree should, if he seeks to escape from its operation, appeal against it within the time allowed after complying with the requirements of law. Where he fails to do so, no relief should ordinarily be given to nun under Order 41, Rule 33. As observed in -- 'Jawahar Bano v. Shujaat Husain Beg', MANU/UP/0233/1920 : AIR 1921 All 367 (H) explaining the decision of the Full Bench in -- 'Rangamlal v. Chandu', 34 All 32 (I): "where there is no sufficient reason for a respondent neglecting either to appeal or to file objections the courts will hesitate before allowing him to object at the hearing or the appeal." In -- 'Abjal Majhi v. Intu Bepari', AIR 1916 Cal 250 (J) Mukherjee J. observed: "This rule is no doubt very widely expressed; but clearly, it should not be applied so as to enable a party litigant to ignore the other provisions of the Code or provisions of statutes like those which relate to the limitation or payment of court-fees". Vide also -- 'Akimannessa v. Bepin Behari', AIR 1916 Cal 261 (K). But there are well recognised exceptions to this rule. One is where as a result of interference in favour of the appellant it becomes necessary to re-adjust the rights of other parties. This might happen when A files a suit claiming a relief in the alternative against B or C and obtains a decree against B and not against C and in an appeal for B the court holds that it is C and not B that is liable. That is the illustration to the rule. The decisions in -- 'Charubala Dasi v. Nihar Kumari Dasi' MANU/WB/0204/1926 : AIR1927Cal831 and -- 'Kannuswami Chetti v. Rabimath Animal', MANU/TN/0117/1932 : AIR 1933 Mad 806 (M) are other instances of the application of this principle. A second class of cases based on the same principle is where the question is one of settling mutual rights and obligations between the same parties. The decision in the -- Attorney General v. Simpson', 1901 2 Ch. 671 (N) is a leading authority falling under this category. There the plaintiff sued for a declaration that the public were entitled to use the locks in a river without payment of tolls and that the defendant was bound to maintain them in good condition. The decision in the -- Attorney General v. Simpson', 1901 2 Ch. 671 (N) is a leading authority falling under this category. There the plaintiff sued for a declaration that the public were entitled to use the locks in a river without payment of tolls and that the defendant was bound to maintain them in good condition. The trial court held that the public had the right to use the locks free of charge and that the defendant was not bound to maintain them. In an appeal preferred by the defendant the court held that the public were bound to pay tolls for the use of the locks. It also declared, under Order 58, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court corresponding to Order 41, Rule 33, Civil P. C., that the appellant was under an obligation to maintain them in good condition. This principle has been followed in a number of decisions in the Indian Courts. A third class of cases in which this rule has been applied is when the relief prayed for is single land indivisible but is claimed against a number of defendants. In such cases, if the suit is decreed and there is an appeal only by some of the defendants and if the relief is granted only to the appellants there is the possibility that there might come into operation at the same time and with reference to the same subject-matter two decrees which are inconsistent and contradictory. -- "Thirumalachariar v. Athimoola Karayalayar', MANU/TN/0101/1932 : AIR 1933 Mad 529 (O), relied on by the respondent is a case of this kind. There, the suit was to enforce an agreement to convey lands stated to have been executed by one Nambi Kone. The defendants to the suit were his widow, and daughter, defendants 1, and 7 and his reversioners defendants 2 to 6. The suit was contested by the latter on the ground that the agreement was not genuine. The Subordinate Judge upheld this contention and dismissed the suit as against them but as against defendants 1 and 7 there was an ex parte decree. On appeal by the plaintiff this court agreed with the Subordinate Judge that the agreement was not genuine and confirmed the decree as against defendants 2 to 6. The Subordinate Judge upheld this contention and dismissed the suit as against them but as against defendants 1 and 7 there was an ex parte decree. On appeal by the plaintiff this court agreed with the Subordinate Judge that the agreement was not genuine and confirmed the decree as against defendants 2 to 6. This court also vacated the ex parte decree against defendants 1 and 7 in exercise of the powers under Order 41, Rule 33 though no appeal had been preferred by them. As the suit was for specific performance of a particular agreement it would obviously be inconsistent to direct the execution of it by some and not by others. If the suit had been decreed against ail the defendants, and defendants 2 to 6 alone had preferred an appeal this court could have under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 4 allowed, the appeal in favour of all the defendants and it is the self-same result that was reached under Order 41, Rule 33. These are well recognised classes of case in which it would be legitimate to exercise the powers under that rule even though there was no appeal relating to the subject-matter. This, however, is not intended to be an exhaustive enumeration of the classes of cases in which courts could interfere under Order 41, Rule 33. Such an enumeration would neither be possible nor even desirable for situations might arise which cannot be foreseen or predicted in which the court must have the power to exercise its jurisdiction under that rule. As observed by Jenkins C. J. in -- 'Gangadhar v. Banabhashi', MANU/WB/0379/1914 : AIR1914Cal722 (P), "no hard and fast rule can be laid down". But however extensive this power may be, one principle can be taken to be well established: it is that when a party having right to appeal fails to do so, relief should ordinarily be refused to him under Order 41, Rule 33. If the matter falls under one or the other of the classes of cases mentioned above if there are special circumstances, the court might exercise its power under that rule in the interests of justice but subject to such exceptions the court will exercise a sound discretion in refusing to grant relief under that rule to one who has submitted to the decree. As held by the Privy Council in -- 'Chokalingam Chetty v. Seethai Ache' MANU/PR/0167/1927, the right which a decree-holder has under a decree when the time for appealing against it has expired is a valuable one and courts must act with considerable caution and reserve before depriving him of that right by invoking the powers under Order 41, Rule 33. Having regard to these principles the question has to be determined whether the exercise by the subordinate Judge of the power under Order 41, Rule 33 is in the instant case proper." 34. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company that amount representing 50% of the appellant's liability is already deposited pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. After satisfying the modified award, the appellant-insurance company is permitted to withdraw any excess amount. It is stated that the 5 th respondent deposited its share of the award before the Tribunal and the same is lying on deposit. In view of the modified award passed by this Court, the 5 th respondent is permitted to withdraw excess amount if any, available in deposit. In case claimants had already withdrawn any amount in excess of amount payable by 5 th respondent, as per modified award passed by this Court, the 5 th respondent is entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings, seeking contribution from appellant. Therefore, the benefit of the order passed by this Court in reducing the total compensation payable to the claimant by following percentage basis will enure to the 5 th respondent, notwithstanding the fact, it has not challenged the portion of the award passed against it. This order is passed by this Court in exercise of its power under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, in order to avoid conflict of award passed by this Court and the unchallenged portion of the award against the 5 th respondent. 35. With these clarifications, all these appeals are partly allowed as stated above. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.