JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in M.V.O.P.No.264 0f 2003 on 26.06 2006

2. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.6,85,000/- against the claimed amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.

3. In the accident that occurred on 28.7.2003, the husband of respondent No.1 herein died in the said accident. It is their case that as on the date of the accident the deceased was 50 years old and was earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- but the Tribunal has taken the income as Rs.10,000/- and granted the compensation of an amount of Rs.6,85,000/-. 4. Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant- insurance company submits that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- which is excessive and it is submitted that the Tribunal without there being any positive evidence ought not to have taken the income as Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has granted higher amounts for loss of estate and the respondents herein were not entitled for any amounts under funeral expenses. He submits that there is no convincing evidence on income and contribution of the deceased.

5. Mr. T. Rahul, learned Coun sel appearing for the respondents herein submits that they have not filed any cross objections. However, it is stated that as the deceased was aged about 50 years, the multiplier that is applicable is 9 but the Tribunal has applied 8 and he submits that even the future prospects were also not taken into consideration and the amounts that were granted under the heads of Consortium and funeral expenses were also not just and reasonable. The Court may consider the case of the respondents herein and enhance the compensation.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for appellant-Insurance Company submits that when there are no cross objections for enhancement of compensation, the Court may not consider the same.

7. The objections of the insurance company with regard to the enhancement of the compensation is without their being any cross appeal. In this case, the insurance company is aggrieved by the quantum and as per the provisions of the C.P.C. if a person is aggrieved, he can file a cross objection questioning the very same award. Basing on the income tax receipts, the Tribunal has come to a just and reasonable conclusion that the income is at Rs.10,000/- per month. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation. Though it is a beneficial legislation, Courts are bound to follow the relevant provisions in Motor Vehicles Act as well as the relevant provisions of the CPC in case of these counter claims. However, when the appellant-insurance company is questioning the quantum on the admitted facts, when the court has an occasion to look at the award passed by the Tribunal and on the face of it, the award is passed with improper multiplier and in the light of the settled law when certain aspects were not considered and the just compensation is not awarded by the Tribunal, in those cases including the non-pecunary heads, just because they have not filed any cross objections, that itself cannot be a ground for the Court not to enhance the compensation. In a way, it is doing injustice to the claimants who are entitled for the compensation. As it is mentioned in the Act just and reasonable compensation, it should be the Endeavour of the Court to see that the claimants are getting a just and reasonable compensation. The interest of the insurance company also have to be considered. Court has balanced the interest of the insurance company as well as the interest of the respondents herein in this case while awarding the compensation. Though the Tribunal has taken Rs.10,000/- as income of the deceased, has not considered the 10% future prospects, had it been, it would be come to Rs.1000/- then the income would be Rs.11,000/- and if 1/3rd is deducted it would come to Rs.3666/- then