( 1 ) FIRST Addl. Claims Tribunal, Bhind, by award dated 8. 2. 1996, passed in Claim Case No. 37 of 1991, awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000 for the death of deceased Chhiddi in the accident occurred on 19. 7. 1991, at about 12 noon by truck No. MBG 9895, belonging to the respondent No. 1 Ashok, alleged to have been insured on the same date with national Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent no. 2.

( 2 ) IN this appeal for enhancement, the learned counsel of the appellants has submitted that the deceased was about 50 years of age, at the time of accident and was agriculturist, earning about Rs. 30,000 per year. Learned Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the exact income of the deceased was not properly proved and in the circumstances, it is not possible to assess dependency. The learned Claims tribunal, in the circumstances, fixed compensation of Rs. 25,000 on the basis of no fault liability and Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium, thus, awarded Rs. 30,000 as compensation. Relying upon the Division bench decision of this court in the case of noharlal Sahu v. Surjeet Singh, 1998 (2)mpwn 128, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that where no income could be assessed, notional income may be deemed to be Rs. 15,000 per annum. However, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the claimant Beti Bai meanwhile, had expired and the legal heirs were not impleaded before the Claims Tribunal. In the circumstances, legal representatives who were added as parties during pendency of appeal are not entitled for any compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that claimant Beti Bai died after about seven years of the institution of claim. In the circumstances, she is entitled to enhanced compensation at least during her lifetime. In the circumstances, in our opinion, taking into consideration the notional income to the tune of Rs. 15,000 per annum, after deducting V3rd of the amount as expenses of the deceased, comes to Rs. 10,000 per annum, multiplied by seven remaining years of survival of the claimant and further adding Rs. 9,500 towards loss to estate and consortium and funeral expenses, the total compensation comes to Rs. 79,500.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent company has vehemently argued that even though his cross-objections were not entertained being time-barred and his application/ for condonation of delay was also dismissed, the court can consider the legal effect of the date and timing of insurance policy under Order 41, rule 33 of civil Procedure Code. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dhangir v. Madan Mohan, air 1988 SC 54; K. Muthuswami Gounder v. Palanippa Gounder, AIR 1998 SC 3118 and State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh, air 1999 SC 2626.

( 4 ) THE contention, on the other hand, of appellants is that where cross-appeal was not entertained, the court has no power to examine the effect of any pleading raised in the cross-appeal. We are not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellants. Rule 33 of Order 41 of civil Procedure Code enables appellate court to pass any order/decree which ought to have been passed. The general principle is that, a decree is binding upon the parties to it until it is set aside by appropriate proceeding. Ordinarily, the appellate court must not vary or reverse a decree or order in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal and this rule holds good notwithstanding Order 41, rule 33 of Civil procedure Code. However, in exceptional cases the rule enables the appellate court to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed even if such decree would be in favour of the parties who have not filed any appeal. The power though discretionary should not be declined to be exercised merely on the ground that the party has not filed any appeal. Thus, in our opinion, even if cross-objections of the insurance company were not entertained on the technical gro