BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS group of 14 appeals, namely, Misc. Appeal No. 515 of 1996 (Shetanbai v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 516 of 1996 (Kamlabai v. Ajay kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 517 of 1996 (Laxman Singh v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 518 of 1996 (Vishnu Kunwar v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 519 of 1996 (Chaman Singh v. Ajay Kumar); misc. Appeal No. 520 of 1996 (Kailash v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 521 of 1996 (Ishwar Singh v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 522 of 1996 (Bane Singh v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 523 of 1996 (Lilabai v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 524 of 1996 (Bahadur Singh v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 525 of 1996 (Tarabai v. Ajay Kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 526 of 1996 (Kalu Singh v. Ajay kumar); Misc. Appeal No. 527 of 1996 (Amar Singh v. Ajay Kumar) and Misc. Appeal No. 528 of 1996 (Kamal Singh v. Ajay Kumar) and also the cross-objections filed by the insurance company in all the aforesaid misc. appeals except in Misc. Appeal No. 515 of 1996 (Shetanbai v. Ajay kumar) are proposed to be decided by this common order; since they arise out of the common award dated 20. 1. 1996 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, khandwa. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that on 10. 3. 93 jalam Singh (the deceased) was going to onkareshwar by Matador No. MP 09-402 to attend the marriage. When he reached moretakka on way to Onkareshwar, he got down at a village to take water. While he was going to take water, bus No. MKN 4786 driven rashly and negligently by the driver, hit him and struck against Matador. Jalam Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Bane Singh, mangu Singh and Karan Singh died in the accident while others received personal injuries. The legal heirs of the aforesaid deceased persons and those who received personal injuries, filed claim petitions claiming compensation from the respondents. ( 3 ) THE defence taken is that the bus was being driven at a slow speed while Matador was being driven by driver Anil Kumar rashly and negligently in wrong directions. He was carrying passengers in violation of the insurance policy, since it could not be used for carrying passengers. It struck the bus resulting in damages to bus, apart from causing injuries to the passengers. He was carrying passengers in violation of the insurance policy, since it could not be used for carrying passengers. It struck the bus resulting in damages to bus, apart from causing injuries to the passengers. The liability for accident and compensation are on the owner and driver of Matador. But because of death of owner and driver of matador in the said accident, the liability should be on the new owner of the Matador. The accident did not take place in the manner as alleged. The facts stated in the claim petitions have been twisted for filing the petition; therefore, damages should be payable by the respondents. ( 4 ) THE insurance company has stated that the bus driver did not possess valid driving licence. It was driven by the driver, who was not employed by the owner of the bus. It was being driven against the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurer of the Matador was not a party, though it is a necessary party, since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. It is also stated that the drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident. ( 5 ) ON the basis of evidence recorded by the Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident took place as alleged resulting in death of some persons and injuries to others. It was not caused by Matador, therefore, implead-ment of insurer and owner of the said vehicle was not necessary. It was not proved that Matador was being plied against the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, compensation under different heads has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petitions till realisation. ( 6 ) THE claimants are not satisfied with the award, therefore, the aforesaid appeals have been filed by them for enhancement of compensation amount. The insurance company has also filed cross-objections in all the appeals except in Misc. Appeal No. 515 of 1996 (Shetanbai v. Ajay Kumar ). ( 7 ) WE have considered the matter particularly the findings recorded by the Claims tribunal with respect to involvement of the vehicles and liability for committing the accident. We are in agreement with the findings recorded on this aspect of the matter. Appeal No. 515 of 1996 (Shetanbai v. Ajay Kumar ). ( 7 ) WE have considered the matter particularly the findings recorded by the Claims tribunal with respect to involvement of the vehicles and liability for committing the accident. We are in agreement with the findings recorded on this aspect of the matter. It is proved that the accident was committed by the driver of the bus, which was being driven rashly and negligently resulting in accident in which many lost their lives while others sustained personal injuries. The driver of the Matador was not responsible for causing the accident; therefore, defence taken by the respondents is unsustainable. The claimants are entitled to compensation. ( 8 ) HAVING come to the conclusion, we now turn to deal with the aforesaid cross-objections filed by the insurance company. On perusal of the memorandum of cross-objections, we find that the insurance company has challenged the findings of the tribunal as to the negligence on the part of the Matador resulting in accident. In view our conclusion, that the Matador was not involved in the accident and it was rash and negligent driving of bus, that caused the accident, we are of the opinion that the insurance company cannot maintain the cross-objections, since it is alleging the negligence. It is a well settled law that the insurance company can challenge the award only on the grounds available to it under section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, unless it has sought permission from the Claims Tribunal under section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This has not been done in these cases. Therefore, the insurance company cannot assail the award on the ground of negligence. Consequently, all the cross-objections of the insurance company are hereby dismissed. ( 9 ) NOW, we proceed to deal with the appeals filed by the claimants one after another. Misc. Appeal No. 515 of 1996: ( 10 ) THE claimant No. 1, Shetanbai, is widow of deceased Mangu Singh while the claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are sons. Deceased mangu Singh was 60 years old at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist. He was earning Rs. 60,000 annually out of his agricultural operation. Shetanbai has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 40,000 annually. True, it is stated that the respondents have not led any evidence against this version nor subjected her to fruitful cross-examination. Deceased mangu Singh was 60 years old at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist. He was earning Rs. 60,000 annually out of his agricultural operation. Shetanbai has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 40,000 annually. True, it is stated that the respondents have not led any evidence against this version nor subjected her to fruitful cross-examination. We are of the view that in absence of exact evidence on this aspect, it can be taken that the deceased would be earning worth Rs. 20,000 being the head of the family, out of the agricultural operation relating thereto. Out of the same, he must be spending Rs. 7,000 on himself leaving Rs. 13,000 to the family. He was 60 years old at the time of accident; therefore, proper multiplier applicable in this case would be 8. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of rs. 13,000 x 8 = Rs. 1,04,000, Rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, taking total compensation to Rs. 1,23,500. The compensation amount shall be shared as follows: (1) Shetanbai 50 per cent (2) Bane Singh 25 per cent (3) Laxman Singh 25 per cent Interest shall carry on the compensation amount at the same rate allowed by the claims Tribunal. Costs on the parties. Misc. Appeal No. 516 of 1996: ( 11 ) THE claimants are legal heirs of the deceased Bhanwar Singh. The deceased was 23 years of age at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist. He possessed 10 bighas of land in village Pond, District In-dore. Out of it, he was earning Rs. 50,000 annually. The Claims Tribunal awarded rs. 1,25,000 compensation along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident till payment. After settling the dependency of Rs. 4,000 per annum, the multiplier of 35 has been utilised in this case. Although the evidence suggests that the deceased was earning rs. 25,000 annually out of the agricultural operations. However, taking into consideration the extent of land, it would not be wrong to fix his income at Rs. 20,000 annually. He was spending Rs. 7,000 on himself, leaving Rs. 13,000 for the family. At this age, proper multiplier would be 17 instead of 35 used by the Tribunal. 25,000 annually out of the agricultural operations. However, taking into consideration the extent of land, it would not be wrong to fix his income at Rs. 20,000 annually. He was spending Rs. 7,000 on himself, leaving Rs. 13,000 for the family. At this age, proper multiplier would be 17 instead of 35 used by the Tribunal. With this background, the total compensation payable would come to Rs. 13,000 x 17 = rs. 2,21,000, Rs. 10,000 toward loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 2,500 for loss of estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, taking total compensation to Rs. 2,40,500 payable with interest awarded at the same rate allowed by the Claims Tribunal. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 518 of 1996: ( 12 ) THE deceased Bane Singh was 25 years old at the time of accident. He was agriculturist possessing 10 bighas of land and earning Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 50,000 annually. Compensation of Rs. 6,25,000 has been claimed and the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,23,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. We think, it is desirable to fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 20,000 annually, keeping in view the extent of land possessed by him, which is fertile in this part of the State, out of which, he would be spending Rs. 7,000 on himself leaving Rs. 13,000 for his family. Proper multiplier in the case should be 17. With this background, the total compensation payable in this case is calculated at rs. 13,000 x 17 = Rs. 2,21,000; Rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life; Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium; Rs. 2,500 for loss of estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, taking total compensation to Rs. 2,40,500 with interest at the rate awarded by the tribunal. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 523 of 1996: ( 13 ) JALAM Singh died in the accident. He was 50 years old at the time of accident. The claimants are his widow and son. The deceased was agriculturist possessing 5 bighas of land and earning Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,000 annually. Compensation of rs. 6,25,000 is claimed and the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 45,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. The claimants are his widow and son. The deceased was agriculturist possessing 5 bighas of land and earning Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,000 annually. Compensation of rs. 6,25,000 is claimed and the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 45,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. The land is situated in Sonkutch, District Dewas. Therefore, it is desirable to fix the annual income at Rs. 18,000. He would be spending Rs. 6,000 on himself leaving balance of Rs. 12,000 annually for his family. The proper multiplier in this case is 13. Therefore, the compensation awardable in this case is Rs. 12,000 x 13 = Rs. 1,56,000; rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life; rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium; Rs. 2,500 for loss of estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, taking total compensation to rs. 1,75,500 carrying interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 525 of 1996: ( 14 ) KARAN Singh died in the accident. He was 40 years old at the time of accident. He was agriculturist and milk vendor. He was possessing 10 acres of land and earning Rs. 6,000 per month. Compensation of Rs. 8,25,000 is claimed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000 carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Looking to the facts of the case and evidence recorded, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not assessed just compensation in this case. It is not difficult to assess the annual income of the deceased at rs. 25,000, out of which he must be spending Rs. 8,000 on himself leaving Rs. 17,000 for his family. The proper multiplier at this age should be 16. With this background, the total compensation payable would be rs. 17,000 x 16 = Rs. 2,72,000; Rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life; Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium; Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, taking total compensation to rs. 2,91,500 carrying interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 517 of 1996: ( 15 ) LAXMAN Singh was 30 years old at the time of accident. He has suffered head injury due to which he lost his memory for 2-3 months. 2,000 for funeral expenses, taking total compensation to rs. 2,91,500 carrying interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 517 of 1996: ( 15 ) LAXMAN Singh was 30 years old at the time of accident. He has suffered head injury due to which he lost his memory for 2-3 months. He has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50 per cent. He claimed total compensation of Rs. 2,25,000. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation at Rs. 45,000. Out of the total compensation awarded, Rs. 15,000 has been awarded for medical expenses; Rs. 5,000 towards loss of earnings for one year and rs. 25,000 for permanent disability. He is agriculturist. We find that the claimant was earning Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,000 annually. We fix the income from out of agricultural operation at Rs. 15,000. Therefore, he should be paid Rs. 15,000 for loss of earnings for one year instead of Rs. 5,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The amount awarded for medical treatment by the Claims Tribunal is maintained. The award for permanent disability to the extent of 50 per cent is on lower side. He suffered serious head injury resulting in loss of memory for 3-4 months. Thereafter he did not keep well. This permanent disability is as high as 50 per cent. Therefore, award against the permanent disability is enhanced to Rs. 40,000 from Rs. 25,000. The total enhanced compensation comes to rs. 70,000 payable with interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal from the date of application till realisation. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 519 of 1996: ( 16 ) CHAMAN Singh suffered spleen rupture and fracture of left 2nd rib and right 3rd rib resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 25 per cent. He has been awarded Rs. 35,000 in total, i. e. , Rs. 25,000 for permanent disability and Rs. 10,000 for his medical treatment. Looking to the nature of injuries and permanent disability, it would be just and proper to enhance compensation to Rs. 50,000 carrying interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal from the date of claim petition till realisation. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 520 of 1996: ( 17 ) KAILASH suffered personal injuries in the left leg. Besides, he suffered pain in chest, backbone and permanent disability of 14 per cent. 50,000 carrying interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal from the date of claim petition till realisation. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 520 of 1996: ( 17 ) KAILASH suffered personal injuries in the left leg. Besides, he suffered pain in chest, backbone and permanent disability of 14 per cent. He has been awarded compensation of Rs. 12,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claims petition till realisation. Looking to the nature of injuries, it would be desirable to enhance compensation to Rs. 15,000 instead of Rs. 12,000 awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate allowed by the tribunal from the date of claim petition till realisation. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 521 of 1996: ( 18 ) ISHWAR Singh suffered fracture on right hand in radius, ulna and elbow with permanent disability of 20 per cent. He has been awarded Rs. 22,000, i. e. , Rs. 5,000 for loss of earnings, Rs. 5,000 for medical expenses and Rs. 12,000 for permanent disability. Looking to the nature of injuries and permanent disability suffered, it would be desirable to enhance the compensation to Rs. 35,000 instead of Rs. 22,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It shall carry interest at the rate allowed by the Claims tribunal from the date of claim petition till realisation. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 522 of 1996: ( 19 ) BANE Singh suffered amputation of right ear and loss of hearing capacity. He had claimed compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 and he has been awarded Rs. 22,000, i. e. , rs. 12,000 for the permanent disability, rs. 5,000 towards medical expenses and rs. 5,000 for loss of earnings. With this background, it would be desirable to enhance compensation to Rs. 35,000 instead of Rs. 22,000. It shall carry interest at the rate allowed by the Claims Tribunal. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 524 of 1996: ( 20 ) THE claimant Bahadur Singh suffered fracture in right leg finger on metatarsal. The claimant claimed Rs. 1,25,000. The claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 22,000. Looking to the nature of injuries and other factors, the award is just and reasonable and it calls for no interference; therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Costs on parties. Misc. The claimant claimed Rs. 1,25,000. The claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 22,000. Looking to the nature of injuries and other factors, the award is just and reasonable and it calls for no interference; therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 526 of 1996: ( 21 ) KALU Singh got left hip dislocation for which stitches were applied. There is also head injury for which stitches were applied. He suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40 per cent. He claimed rs. 1,25,000, but the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000, i. e. , Rs. 5,000 for loss of earnings, Rs. 10,000 for medical expenses and Rs. 20,000 for permanent disability. Looking to the nature of injuries and other factors, it is desirable to enhance the compensation to Rs. 50,000 instead of rs. 35,000 awarded by the Tribunal. It shall carry interest at the rate allowed by the Claims Tribunal. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 527 of 1996: ( 22 ) AMAR Singh suffered injuries on shoulder, chest and scapula region. There is no fracture. The Tribunal has awarded rs. 12,000 against claim of Rs. 1,25,000. There is no case for enhancement of award; therefore, compensation awarded by the tribunal is confirmed. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal No. 528 of 1996: ( 23 ) KAMAL Singh suffered fracture of spleen and injuries on abdomen. Permanent disability is to the extent of 25 per cent. Against the claim of Rs. 1,25,000, he has been awarded Rs. 22,000, i. e. , Rs. 5,000 for loss of earnings, Rs. 5,000 for medical expenses and Rs. 12,000 for permanent disability. Looking to the nature of injuries and other factors, it is desirable to enhance compensation to Rs. 40,000 instead of rs. 22,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It shall carry interest at the rate allowed by the Claims Tribunal from the date of application till payment. Costs on the parties. ( 24 ) ALL appeals and cross-objections are decided in terms as aforesaid. Orders accordingly. .