The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's duty to award just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, taking into account recent legal developments and the power of the Court to enhance compensation even in the absence of a cross-objection.

JUDGMENT

Anuja Prabhudessai , J. - The Appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the M.V. Act") challenging the judgment and Award dated 14/08/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 828/2009.By the impugned judgment and Award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.22,99,125/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till final realization.

2. The Respondent No. 1 is the widow and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased Vikram Choudhari, who expired on 05/05/2009 as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident involving TATA Specio bearing No. HP-01/ K-0442. The Respondent nos. 1 to 4, who shall be hereinafter referred to as Claimants, had claimed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was a Doctor of 52 years of age and was earning Rs.23,00,000/- per annum. The Claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming total compensation of Rs.1,69,00,000/-.

3. The owner of the offending vehicle as well as the Appellant Insurance Company denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle. They claimed that the claim was exorbitant and imaginary.

4. Upon considering the documentary as well as oral evidence on record the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the TATA Speciao and that the death of Vikram Choudhari Was caused due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal relied upon the income tax return at Exh. 53, which was filed prior to the death of the deceased and held that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.2,66,644/- per annum. The Tribunal deducted an amount of Rs.6097/- payable towards Income Tax and upon deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 11, computed loss of dependency at Rs.1,95,375/-. The Tribunal held that as per the dictum of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298, addition of an amount towards future prospects is permissible only up to the age of 50 years. The Tribunal held that the deceased was 52 years of age and hence, the Tribunal did not add any amount towards future prospects. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- each to Claimant Nos. 2 to 4 towards loss of love and affection, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards conveyance charges. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.22,99,125/-. This judgment and Award is under challenge in this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in computing loss of future income on the basis of annual income of Rs. 2,66,644/-. He submits that the compensation awarded on all other conventional heads is exorbitant. He also questions grant of interest from the date of the application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. He contends that the impugned Award is unsustainable in law and facts and is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned Counsel for the Claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not 'just and reasonable'. He submits that this Court can enhance the compensation even in the absence of the cross-objections. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sumitra wd/o Debu Vishwas and ors. in First Appeal No. 1116 of 2015 . He submits that as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2018) 3 MhLJ 70, the Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal and parental consortium. He further states that the deceased was a Doctor and would have s