SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed by the non-applicant insurance company and the owner of the vehicle against the award dated 6. 9. 1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, west Nimar, Mandleshwar, in Claim Case no. 66 of 1996. The claimants also filed cross-objections for the enhancement of compensation amount. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12. 5. 1996 the deceased Vijay Singh, the husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicant Nos. 2 to 5 and son of applicant Nos. 6 and 7, was going towards the river along with his son Basant Singh. When they were near the house of Nandu, respondent No. 8 came there driving tractor No. MP 10-2385 attached with trolley no. MP 10-2386 in rash and negligent manner and when he turned it, the wheel of the trolley crushed Vijay Singh, as a result of which he died on the spot. He was head Cashier in State Bank of Indore, branch Choli and was receiving salary at rs. 10,257. 20. He was aged about 47 years and had ample chances of promotion. The applicants filed claim case and sought compensation of Rs. 22,00,000 for the death of Vijay Singh. The respondent No. 8 and the appellants resisted the claim. The appellant insurance company, inter alia, pleaded that respondent No. 8, the driver of the tractor had no valid driving licence and the tractor was used for the purpose other than agriculture for which it was insured. Hence, it was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley by the respondent no. 8 and it awarded compensation of rs. 10,84,764. The non-applicants insurance company and the owner filed appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act questioning the award of compensation. The claimants filed cross-objections claiming enhancement of compensation amount. ( 3 ) THE appellant insurance company did not obtain leave of the Tribunal under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest the case on merits on all grounds. The appellant insurance company has got limited defences enumerated under section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants filed cross-objections claiming enhancement of compensation amount. ( 3 ) THE appellant insurance company did not obtain leave of the Tribunal under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest the case on merits on all grounds. The appellant insurance company has got limited defences enumerated under section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Of course, where the Tribunal is satisfied that there was collusion between the claimants and the owner or the person against whom the claim is made, and the latter failed to contest the claim, it could grant leave to the insurer to contest the claim on all grounds that were available against the person against whom the claim was made. This provision is a mandatory provision and without obtaining leave of the Tribunal, the insurance company cannot contest the case on merits on all the grounds which were available to the owner and driver. In this case, there appears no collusion between the owner and the claimants. Under such circumstances, the appellant insurance company cannot be heard on merits. It is true that this appeal has been filed jointly by the insurer and the owner but their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of Chinnama George v. N. K. Raju, 2000 ACJ 777 (SC), held that joint appeal was not maintainable and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant insurance company. ( 4 ) MR. H. G. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that this court should exercise its powers under Order 41, rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code and reduce the compensation amount which is highly excessive. We do not find any substance in this argument. Even otherwise, compensation amount does not appear to be so high that this court should exercise its power under Order 41, rule 33 of the civil Procedure Code and reduce the compensation amount. It has come in the evidence of neelabai, AW 1, the widow and babu Singh, AW 2, the father of the deceased that the deceased Vijay Singh was head Cashier in State Bank of Indore, branch Choli and was receiving Rs. 10,300 per month as pay. There were also chances for revision of pay and the deceased had also chance of getting promotion. Taking in view the future prospects, his monthly income can be easily assessed at Rs. 12,000. [general Manager, Kerala State Road trans. Corpn. 10,300 per month as pay. There were also chances for revision of pay and the deceased had also chance of getting promotion. Taking in view the future prospects, his monthly income can be easily assessed at Rs. 12,000. [general Manager, Kerala State Road trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 acj 1 (SC)]. On deducting 1/3rd of it for personal expenses of the deceased and, income tax, etc. and keeping in view his standard of living, we fix the dependency of the applicants at Rs. 7,000 per month and Rs. 84,000 yearly. It has come in evidence of Babu Singh that the date of birth of the deceased was 24. 9. 1949. According to this, at the time of accident, the deceased was of the age of 46 years. Under such circumstances, the appropriate multiplier would be 13. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount comes to (13 x rs. 84,000) = Rs. 10,92,000. Respondent no. 1, the widow, is entitled to Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000 for the funeral expenses. On addition of this amount, the total compensation comes to rs. 10,99,000. In view of above, it cannot be said that compensation amount awarded by Claims Tribunal is excessive. Under such circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. In view of above, we do not find any substance in the cross-objection also filed by the claimants. For meagre amount of rs. 15,000 we do not think it proper to interfere in the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the cross-objections are also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .