JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant/second claimant in O.P (MV) No.495 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara. The respondents herein are the first and third claimants and the respondents before the tribunal. 2. According to the claimant, on 26.03.2003, at about 01.00 a.m., while the deceased was travelling along with his goods in a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-06-9459 from Nagarcoil to Thiruvananthapuram, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner fell into a pond and as a result of the accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The claimant, who is the legal heir of the appellant, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ?10,00,000/-. 3. The first and second respondents were the owner-cum-driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively and the third respondent was the mother of the deceased. The second respondent – insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. They contended that the first respondent was not holding a valid driving licence and badge to drive a mini goods vehicle. They filed an additional written statement contending that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and there is no insurance coverage against the risk of a gratuitous passenger. Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.B1 documents were marked before the tribunal. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and awarded a sum of ?3,47,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 2 nd respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the second claimant has come up in appeal. 4. Heard Smt.Meena.A,the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.P.K.Panicker, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company. 5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the second claimant has come up in appeal. 4. Heard Smt.Meena.A,the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.P.K.Panicker, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company. 5. At the time of hearing the appeal, the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company raised an argument that since the appeal has been filed only by one among the claimants, who is the legal heir of the deceased and the other claimants are arrayed as the respondents and their shares have been apportioned by the tribunal, only the appellant is entitled for claiming the enhanced compensation. The learned standing counsel further argued that even in the appeal, the appellant has not sought for compensation for the other claimants. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, submits that although not all claimants from the original petition are arrayed as the appellants, this Court is competent to award compensation to all the claimants particularly since they have been arrayed as respondents. The learned counsel also relying on the judgment of this Court in Anjali v. Ragesh and Others [ 2020 (5) KHC 392 ] and Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. V.S.Sujatha [ 2023 (6) KHC 89 ], and argued that all the claimants are entitled for the enhanced compensation. Relying on Paragraph 24 of the judgment in V.S.Sujatha (supra) she further argued that, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objection from the claimants, this court is competent to enhance the compensation in an appeal filed by the insurance company. Paragraph 24 of the judgment in V.S.Sujatha (supra) reads as follows: “The 1st petitioner has not chosen to file any appeal against the award and the petitioners 2 and 3 have challenged the award only to the limited extent of the ratio regarding apportionment of compensation between the 1st petitioner and themselves. This Court, in the nature of the contention of the insurance company that the award is excessive, ventured to find out whether the award is just and reasonable and in the process, found that the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs. 400,196/-. It is now trite that the appellate Court in appeal filed by the insurance company can enhance compensation without appeal or cross objection by the claimant in order to award just and reasonable compensation. 400,196/-. It is now trite that the appellate Court in appeal filed by the insurance company can enhance compensation without appeal or cross objection by the claimant in order to award just and reasonable compensation. The Supreme Court in APSRTC represented by its General Manager v. M. Ramadevi and others , 2008 (3) SCC 379 , relying on the decision in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh , 2003 (2) SCC 274 has held that, High Court is justified in enhancing compensation even when there is no appeal by the claimant”. Hence, according to her, all the claimants, though they have not challenged the award by way of appeal, are entitled for the enhanced compensation. 7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company relied on the judgments of this Court in Sreedhara Pai v. Damodara Naiken [ 1980 KHC 411 ] and Sher Singh and Others v. Union of India [1980 KHC 1532] of the Delhi High Court. Paragraph 10 of the judgment In Sreedhara Pai (supra) reads as follows: “The general rule is that an Appellate Court can reverse or vary a decree of the Trial Court only in favour of the party who has appealed from the Trial Court's decree. When there are several plaintiffs and defendants and only one of them files an appeal, normally, the Appellate Court will interfere with the decree under appeal only in favour of the party who has preferred the appeal. O.41, R.4 is an exception to the general Rule, Under this Rule, the Appellate Court is given powers to vary a decree of the Trial Court against several persons, one of whom alone appeals, if the decree proceeds on any ground common to all of them. This is important. The enabling provision contained in O.41 R.4 can be made use of by the Appellate Court only when the decree proceeds on a ground common to all, that is, the party who has preferred the appeal and the parties who are not before the Appellate Court. Therefore, where an appeal is preferred by one of the parties alone, without impleading all the parties to the suit, and where the appellant does not have a ground common with those who have not been impleaded, the Appellate Court cannot vary, modify or reverse a decree in favour of the party who has appealed”. 8. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. 8. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. 9. On a perusal of the appeal filed, it is seen that the appellant had challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, mainly under the heads, monthly notional income fixed, compensation awarded towards loss of estate, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and pain and sufferings. On a perusal of the award, it is also seen that the compensation awarded was not just and reasonable. It may be true that the appellant, himself, had filed this appeal after attaining the age of majority, after realizing that the amount awarded was very meagre. The other claimants are arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal. 10. Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure grants an appellate court broad powers to pass any decree or order that ought to have been passed by the trial court, even if the appeal doesn't address the specific issue. This "extraordinary power" can be exercised to do complete justice and ensure consistency, even in favour of parties who haven't appealed, and is particularly useful in cases with multiple parties or decrees. Section 169 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 confirms the tribunal with all the powers of the civil court for the purposes mentioned in Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure . As well as Rule 395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 also enables the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure to be applied to the proceedings before the tribunal. 11. It is a settled legal position of law that Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code is applicable to a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellate court can pass such other decree or order as the case may require. The words “as the case may require” used in Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code is having a wider interpretation to enable the appellate court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of justice. Hence for the appellate court to exercise its powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code, all the parties before the trial court are to be before the appellate court. 12. Admittedly, all the parties before the tribunal are made parties in this appeal. Hence for the appellate court to exercise its powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code, all the parties before the trial court are to be before the appellate court. 12. Admittedly, all the parties before the tribunal are made parties in this appeal. The question to be considered by this Court is whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable. The apex court in Anjali (supra) , held that the High Court is justified in enhancing compensation even when there is no appeal or cross objection by the claimants, in an appeal by the insurance company. In such an event, there is no doubt that even though all the parties have not appealed against the award passed by the tribunal and if only one of the claimants has filed an appeal, all the claimants are entitled to get the benefit of the enhanced compensation. This Court in Anjali (supra) , has held that even in cases where one of the claimants has filed an appeal, all the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation. The tribunal’s apportionment of compensation among the parties in the claim petition is solely for the purpose of justly distributing the compensation awarded. The judgment relied on by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company, is not applicable to the facts of this case. As stated above, since the compensation awarded by The tribunal is unjustifiably low, I find that all the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation that is being awarded by this court. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:- I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the deceased, who was a shop keeper as well as dealer of plantains, had claimed an amount of ?4,000/- as the income, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ?2,250/- as the monthly notional income. The learned counsel further submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ] , the monthly income ought to have been taken at ?4,000/-, since the accident is of the year 2003 and seeks enhancement of income fixed. The learned counsel further submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ] , the monthly income ought to have been taken at ?4,000/-, since the accident is of the year 2003 and seeks enhancement of income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ?4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only). II. Loss of dependency The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that since the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of accident, following the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC) ], the multiplier to be adopted is “15”, but the tribunal had adopted the multiplier as 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that at the time of death of the injured, there were four legal heirs, the mother, wife and two children. However, the tribunal had deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the legal heirs were four in number, the wife and two children were the applicants and the mother was the third respondent before the tribunal. It is also submitted that the mother was alive at the time of the death of the injured. Hence, I find that the deduction towards the personal and living expenses shall be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. Hence, following the judgments of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] and Sarla Verma (supra), the total compensation payable under the afore head is recalculated thus ?5,40,000/- (4,000 x 12 x 15 x 3/4). The tribunal had granted an amount of ?2,88,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ?2,52,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Only)under the afore head. III. Funeral expenses Towards the head funeral expenses, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ?5,000/-, whereas the appellant was entitled for an amount of ?15,000/-. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi & Ors (Supra), I find that the legal heirs are entitled for an additional enhancement of 10% in a span of three years after 2017. III. Funeral expenses Towards the head funeral expenses, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ?5,000/-, whereas the appellant was entitled for an amount of ?15,000/-. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi & Ors (Supra), I find that the legal heirs are entitled for an additional enhancement of 10% in a span of three years after 2017. Thus, the total amount to be awarded under the afore head will be ?18,150/-. Since the tribunal has already awarded an amount of ?5,000/-, there will be an additional amount of ? 13,150/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Only) under the afore head. IV. Loss of consortium/loss of love and affection The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had awarded an amount of ?15,000/- under the head loss of consortium. Since there are four legal heirs, they are entitled for a total amount of ?1,60,000/- towards the said head, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra). Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), they are also entitled to get 10% enhancement in a span of three years after 2017. Accordingly, the appellant is awarded a compensation of ?48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, totalling to ?1,93,600/- (48400 x 4). Since the tribunal had already awarded an amount of ?15,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ?1,78,600/- The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that an amount of ?15,000/- was awarded by the tribunal under the head loss of love and affection. In New India Assurance Company v. Somwati and others [2020 (5) KLT OnLine 1198 (SC)], it has been held that once compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, no amount shall be awarded under the head loss of love and affection, as it would amount to duplication of compensation. Accordingly, I delete ?15,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the head loss of love and affection and I award an additional amount of ?1,78,600/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Six Hundred Only) under the head loss of consortium. 14. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. 14. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. Since the appeal is of the year 2012, I find it reasonable to award interest @ 7% for the enhanced amount. 15. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount awarded by the tribunal (in Rs.) Amount modified in appeal (in Rs.) Total compensation 1 Loss of estate 15,000 (not modified) 15,000 2 Love and affection 15,000 (-15,000) Deleted 3 Loss of Consortium 15,000 1,78,600 1,93,600 4 Funeral expenses 5,000 13,150 18,150 5 Damage to clothing 1,000 (not modified) 1,000 6 Pain and sufferings 5,000 (not modified) 5,000 7 Transportation charges 3,000 (not modified) 3,000 8 Loss of dependency 2,88,000 2,52,000 5,40,000 Total amount (Claim limited to) 10,00,000 3,47,000 4,28,750 7,75,750 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant/ claimant No.2 and respondents 1 and 2/claimant Nos. 1 and 3 and respondent 5 are entitled for the enhanced compensation awarded by this Court. Hence, I award an additional amount of ?4,28,750/- (Rupees Four Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate cost from the respondent insurer. The 4th respondent insurer in the appeal, shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appellant as well as respondents 1, 2 and 5 shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and Bank details before the 4th respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the 4th respondent, insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant and respondents 1, 2 and 5 at the earliest, in accordance with law. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the 4th respondent, insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant and respondents 1, 2 and 5 at the earliest, in accordance with law. However, the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of 1987 days in filing the appeal. The ratio of apportionment adopted by the tribunal will be followed as regards the enhanced compensation also.