N. Kirubakaran, J.

Compliance of principles of natural justice is necessary and it is a basic principle. Whether non-issuance of notice before enhancing the compensation to the opposite side, is necessary? Certainly, not. Only when non-compliance of principles of natural justice causes prejudice or violates the rights of the opposite party, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Whereas when the opposite party is going to be benefited by an order, there is no necessity to issue notice to the said party.

2. To put it otherwise, benefit could be given even ex parte in the absence of the opposite party in the proceedings, especially, in claims regarding the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, when the proceedings are brought before this Court by Insurance Companies/Transport Corporation. Similarly, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Companies/Transport Corporation, etc., this Court has got power and jurisdiction to enhance the compensation by re-appreciating the evidence on record when the Tribunal did not award just compensation to the victims of the road traffic accidents.

3. Here is one such case, wherein the appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved over fixing the liability on the appellant Insurance Company and awarding of Rs. 7,13,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Thirteen Thousand only) for the death of one Vellaichamy, aged about 31 years, an L.I.C. Agent, allegedly earning about Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), in the accident occurred on 13.07.2010, when he was riding his two wheeler which was allegedly hit behind by Eicher Van owned by the sixth respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.

4. The case of the appellant-Insurance Company is that the accident was a 'Hit and Run' case and subsequently, the insured vehicle was roped in only for the purpose of insurance claim. That was the contention made in the counter statement. However, the Tribunal based on the evidence of P.W.2 - eyewitness, fixed the negligence on the driver of Eicher Van and awarded Rs. 7,13,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Thirteen Thousand only) to be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company.

5. Mr. M. Jerin Mathew, learned Counsel representing Mr. M.E. Ilango, Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that (i) the vehicle was not involved in the accident; (ii) it was a 'Hit and Run' case; (iii) only for the purpose of insurance claim, subsequently, the vehicle was deliberately included; (iv) there is no mention about the Registration Number of the vehicle either in the complaint or in the evidence adduced by P.W.2 - eyewitness; (v) the Tribunal failed to give any finding with regard to the negligence in respect of the specific plea made by the appellant-Insurance Company and (vi) there is nothing in the evidence to show that the vehicle was involved in the accident. He would further submit that in the absence of a finding by the Tribunal with regard to the negligence, the matter at least, be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.

6. This Court head the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company at length and perused the records very meticulously.

7. However, this Court is not inclined to appreciate any of the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company.

8. The accident occurred on 13.07.2010 and the deceased was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. It is the specific case of the respondents 1 to 5/claimants that Eicher Van was involved in the accident and P.W.2 who witnessed the accident and who was travelling behind the deceased in another two wheeler, categorically stated that Eicher Van overtook him and dashed behind the two wheeler in which the deceased was travelling. Therefore, it is clear that Eicher Van was involved in the accident as there was no rebuttal evidence on the part of the appellant-Insurance Company.

9. The learned Counsel for