The court has the power to enhance compensation even in the absence of a cross-objection by the claimants, if it finds that the award is on the lower side.

KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.

( 1 ) THANTHAI Periyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED over the award directing the appellant to pay the compensation of rs. 1,80,000 to the claimants, the respondents herein as against the total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000, the present appeal has been presented before this court both on the ground of negligence and of quantum.

( 3 ) THE facts briefly are: One Muthian, who was working as Deputy Tahsildar at panruti Taluk Office, is the deceased. On 4. 5. 92 at about 8. 30 p. m. , the deceased was driving his scooter from Panruti to Varakalpattu in the Panruti to Cuddalore main road. The deceased was nearing Boologanathar Koil temple at Nellikuppam in the extreme left side of the road. While so, the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation came in the same direction from panruti to Cuddalore at a high speed. The bus in a rash and negligent manner hit behind the scooter. Due to the impact, the deceased Muthian was thrown out from the scooter and fell into a pit. He sustained multiple and grievous injuries on the head and all over the body and was lying down on the roadside ditch in a pool of blood gasping for life. However, the driver of the bus did not choose to stop the vehicle but sped away. The deceased was immediately taken to the Government Hospital at cuddalore. After some treatment, on the advice of the doctors, he was taken to the apollo Hospital at Madras. He took treatment from 5. 5. 1992 to 11. 5. 1992. Despite the best treatment, the deceased died on 11. 5. 1992 at about 7. 45 p. m.

( 4 ) THE claimants Sundari Ammal, wife, aged about 42 years, Manimaran, son, aged about 21 years, Pari, son, aged about 19 years, Pallavi, daughter, aged about 18 years and Jagadambal Ammal, mother, aged about 70 years, being the dependants filed a petition claiming a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. The said claim was contested by the appellant Corporation by examining the driver as RW 1 and a passenger of the bus as RW 2 to establish that the deceased alone was negligent and as such, the Corporation was not liable to pay any compensation.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal after scrutiny of the materials, concluded that the driver of the bus was negligent and the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 1,80,000 as compensation.

( 6 ) THIS award is the subject-matter of the challenge in this appeal by the appellant Corporation disputing its liability.

( 7 ) MR. G. Muniratnam, counsel for the appellant would urge the following contentions: the Tribunal did not consider the evidence of RW 1, the driver of the bus which is supported by RW 2, the passenger of the bus. The evidence of PW 2, a relative of the deceased cannot be given credibility, in view of the fact that his evidence is completely contrary to Exh. A-3, the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, which would reveal that there was no damage to the bus. If the bus had hit the scooterist, there would have been some damage to the front side of the bus. The deceased scooterist. on seeing the bus coming behind, took a left turn and fell into a ditch and thereby he sustained the injuries. At any rate, the quantum is on the higher side. Applying and adopting the multiplier of 10 years and fixing the monthly contribution at Rs. 1,500 are riot proper.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, Mr. V. P. Venkat, learned counsel for the respondents, in his reply would contend that the Tribunal correctly found, on placing reliance upon the testimony of PW 2, who is a truthful witness, that the driver alone was negligent. The counsel would further submit that the fixation of the quantum and assessment of the damages by the Tribunal is not proper, as the Tribunal has only awarded rs. 1,80,000 as against the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000, especially when the deceased being the Deputy Tahsildar would have got a future prospect of life and as such, the amount awarded is on the very lower side. He would also point out that even in the absence of cross-objectio