Appellate courts can enhance compensation for all claimants under Order 41 Rule 33, even if only one claimant appeals, ensuring just and reasonable compensation is awarded.

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. 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 t