IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation can be enhanced without cross-objections, emphasizing the application of the multiplier method for calculating just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

V Srinivas, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge at Chittoor (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.286 of 2015 dated 01.12.2016.

2. The appellant is owner/A.P.S.R.T.C. of the Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1458 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are children of one T.Sankaramma (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’). Respondent No.3 is driver of the said 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 14.03.2015 at about 02.00 p.m., the deceased, her husband, claimants and others boarded an auto, when they reached near Yamaha showroom at about 02.45 p.m., the crime bus driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed the said auto, resulted, deceased died on the spot and other sustained injuries.

ii). Being dependents, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the crime bus.

5. The respondent No.1 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 driver of the auto, which was overloaded, but not the 2nd respondent/driver.

6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? and

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.6,24,000/-, 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 appellants/driver and APSRTC.

10. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri Y.V.S.S.Dharaneesh, learned counsel representing Sri K.Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants.

11. Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants submits that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, which was overloaded, in causing the incident; that the testimony of P.W.2 cannot be believed as he was not witnessed the accident; that the Tribunal erroneously has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month; that the Tribunal awarded the compensation in excessive without any material and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal.

12. Sri Y.V.S.S.Dharaneesh, learned counsel representing Sri K.Suresh Kumar Reddy, 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 even 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 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 Division Bench judgment of this Court in The National Insurance Company Ltd., v. E.Suseelamma, 2023 SCC Online AP 1725.

14. Now, the following