DWIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal under section 173 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M. V. Act'), feeling aggrieved by the award dated 18. 12. 2003 passed by Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, jaora, District Ratlam in Claim Case No. 55 of 2003, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation amount of rs. 90,000 in favour of Girvarnath, son of ramnath Kalbelia, respondent No. 1 and liability has also been saddled on the appellant insurance company. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 5. 3. 2001 Girvarnath, respondent No. 1, original claimant in the claim petition was going on a tractor No. MP 14-8852 from tajkheda to Mahidpur, as a labourer on this tractor. This tractor was being driven by Bagdiram, respondent No. 2, rashly and negligently. Resultantly, tractor turned turtle near village Delchi, thereby respondent no. 1-claimant sustained grievous injuries on his left leg and on hip joint. The matter has been reported to the police Mahidpur road; thereby the concerned police registered a criminal case against the driver, respondent No. 2, for the offence under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal code. On these allegations, respondent No. 1-claimant has filed claim petition under section 166 of the M. V. Act, claiming the compensation amount of Rs. 3,28,000 from the present appellant insurance company and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, driver and owner of the concerned tractor. Learned tribunal, after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record, held that present appellant together with driver and owner of the concerned tractor are jointly and severally responsible for the payment of compensation amount of Rs. 90,000 to claimant-respondent No. 1 and awarded the aforesaid amount in favour of respondent no. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid liability, which has been saddled on appellant insurance company, the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1-claimant has also filed cross-objections under Order 41, rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code against the impugned award itself, feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation amount and prayed for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1-claimant has also filed cross-objections under Order 41, rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code against the impugned award itself, feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation amount and prayed for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 5 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the concerned tractor was insured with the appellant insurance company only for agricultural purposes, whereas claimant-respondent No. 1 was travelling in the concerned tractor in violation of the condition of the insurance policy as a gratuitous passenger, therefore, the liability for the payment of compensation amount cannot be saddled on the insurance company, therefore, submits that learned tribunal has committed error in holding appellant insurance company also liable for the payment of compensation amount, therefore, prayed for modification of the impugned award with regard to the liability saddled on appellant insurance company. ( 6 ) PER contra, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that claimant-respondent No. 1 was travelling in the concerned tractor as agricultural labourer, not paid any fare for travelling on this tractor, therefore, he happened to be the third party for this accident. The learned tribunal has rightly saddled the liability for payment of compensation amount on the insurance company also. Therefore, no interference is called for with this finding. But similarly assailed the finding with regard to the quantum of compensation amount. According to him, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation amount of rs. 90,000 only which is on lower side. The claimant-respondent No. 1 sustained grievous injuries, which caused permanent disability to his earning capacity, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. ( 7 ) FIRST point for consideration before this court is as to whether the liability for payment of compensation amount is rightly saddled on the appellant insurance company by the learned Tribunal or not. ( 8 ) ON perusal of the evidence on record, it is apparent that claimant Girvarnath, aw 1, stated in his statement that he was travelling in the tractor without paying any fare. They were going to Tajkheda for attending marriage. The tractor was being driven by respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently. ( 8 ) ON perusal of the evidence on record, it is apparent that claimant Girvarnath, aw 1, stated in his statement that he was travelling in the tractor without paying any fare. They were going to Tajkheda for attending marriage. The tractor was being driven by respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently. He also asked the driver to drive the tractor slowly, but due to high speed of the tractor, it turned turtle, thereby he sustained grievous injuries on his leg. He was immediately admitted in the hospital and remained there for near about two months. The police has also registered a criminal case against the driver of the vehicle for rash and negligent driving. It is nowhere suggested by the appellant insurance company that claimant has paid any fare to driver of the vehicle for travelling in the tractor in contravention of the conditions of insurance policy. Thus, on the basis of the statement of claimant Girvarnath, AW 1, it is not proved that he had paid any fare to the driver of the tractor concerned. Thus, he cannot be deemed to be the gratuitous passenger travelling in a transport vehicle concerned. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 ACJ 1909 (SC), wherein death of passenger travelling in trailer along with his bags of vegetables occurred in accident in 1991. In that circumstance, it was held that insurance company is not liable for any payment to claimant because passenger's risk is not covered under the insurance policy. Similarly, learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the apex Court rendered in M. V. Jayadevappa v. Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. , 2005 ACJ 1801 (SC), wherein it is also held that if the passenger travelling in a goods vehicle in contravention of the condition of the policy, then insurance company is not responsible for the payment of compensation amount. The appellant has also relied on the decision of the Supreme court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 2005 ACJ 721 (SC), wherein it is held that a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, the liability for payment of compensation amount cannot be fixed on the insurance company. The appellant has also relied on the decision of the Supreme court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 2005 ACJ 721 (SC), wherein it is held that a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, the liability for payment of compensation amount cannot be fixed on the insurance company. The same view has again been taken by Division Bench of this high Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramanand, 2005 ACJ 1405 (MP); national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angori Bai, 2005 ACJ 75 (MP); National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Javitri Devi, 2005 ACJ 2131 (MP) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy, 2003 ACJ 468 (SC) also. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid principles, it is apparent that if in a goods vehicle, passenger is travelling as a gratuitous passenger in contravention of the condition of the insurance policy, then the liability for payment of compensation cannot be saddled or fixed on the insurance company. ( 10 ) ON perusal of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apparent that it is not proved by the appellant that claimant-respondent No. 1 was travelling in the goods vehicle on payment of fare to the driver and was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle concerned. Therefore, the principle is distinguishable and not applicable in the present circumstances and factual scenario of this case. In the present circumstances of the case, Full bench of this High Court in Jugal Kishore v. Ramlesh Devi, 2004 ACJ 297 (MP), has defined the third party and held as under: " (17) Section 145 (g) of the Act defines 'third party'. It defines that the 'third party' includes the government. It would mean that other than the contracting parties to the insurance policy, the expression 'third party' should include everyone, to it a person travelling in another vehicle, one walking on the road or a passenger in the vehicle itself which is the subject-matter of the insurance policy. Every insured takes out an insurance policy against third party risk and enters into a contract with the insurer only with the motive, intention and purpose of covering the risks which may arise in relation to claims lodged against him by a third party. Every insured takes out an insurance policy against third party risk and enters into a contract with the insurer only with the motive, intention and purpose of covering the risks which may arise in relation to claims lodged against him by a third party. Insurer agreeing to issue insurance policy thereby undertakes to insure the insured and indemnify him against all risks in relation to all claims lodged against him by third party. It will not be proper to narrow the scope and ambit of the word 'third party' and exclude the passengers from the operation and purview which would not only defeat the very purpose of taking out the insurance policy, but the very object of the Motor Vehicles Act which makes it mandatory requirement of law that all vehicles/owners of the vehicles must be compulsorily insured against third party risk. (18) We are in full agreement with the division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Usha Jain v. United India insurance Co. Ltd. , 1997 ACJ 1311 (MP), where the words 'third party' is defined and it is held that in the context of the provision contained in Chapter viii of the scheme of insurance with regard to motor vehicles it may well be understood by the words 'third party', that they include persons and government other than the insurer and insured. Section 94 provides that no person shall use except as a passenger or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place without an insurance as provided in the Act. Only exception made in sub-section (2) is in respect of government vehicles and the vehicles of local authorities and State transport undertakings. Therefore, it is held that third party will be a party other than insurer and insured. We hold that third party will include the passengers in the vehicles not travelling for hire or reward. Once it is held that the passenger is travelling for hire or reward in any vehicle other than public service vehicle or in breach of conditions of section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurance company is not liable to indemnify third party otherwise, insurance company is liable to indemnify such passenger. Once it is held that the passenger is travelling for hire or reward in any vehicle other than public service vehicle or in breach of conditions of section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurance company is not liable to indemnify third party otherwise, insurance company is liable to indemnify such passenger. " In view of the law laid down by this court in Jugal Kishore, 2004 ACJ 297 (MP), it is apparent that claimant-respondent No. 1 includes under the definition of 'third party' as defined under section 145 (g) of the M. V. Act and is entitled to get compensation amount for the injuries sustained to him due to this accident by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle concerned by respondent No. 2. Thus, in view of the aforesaid law laid down by this High Court, in my considered opinion, the liability for payment of compensation amount can be fixed on the appellant insurance company also as claimant being the 'third party' can claim compensation amount for the injuries sustained by him in this accident. ( 11 ) WITH regard to the cross-objection for the quantum of compensation amount is concerned, when this court is hearing the appeal against the impugned award, in that case, opposite party can also assail the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal and that can be challenged as a cross-objection by the opposite party also. This view finds support from the decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court rendered in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Loganathan, 2005 ACJ 1393 (Madras), wherein it is held that if appeal has been filed by the insurance company on the finding with regard to the liability saddled on the insurance company for the payment of compensation amount in contravention of the condition of the policy, in that case, claimant can have the right to file a cross-objection with regard to the quantum of the compensation amount, that can be heard by the court on its merits. ( 12 ) IN view of the cross-objection filed by respondent No. 1 heard on merits. ( 13 ) IT is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that learned Tribunal has awarded only compensation amount of rs. 90,000 where the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his left leg, which resulted in permanent disability for the working of the left leg. ( 13 ) IT is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that learned Tribunal has awarded only compensation amount of rs. 90,000 where the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his left leg, which resulted in permanent disability for the working of the left leg. This fact has been proved by the statement of Dr. S. K. Varun, aw 2, who after examining claimant found permanent disability of 100 per cent of the working in left leg, whereas in the cross-examination, he admitted that permanent disability of the left leg be reduced to 40 per cent if assessed working of the total body of the claimant. He also opined that due to this injury, left leg of the claimant-respondent No. 1, has been shortened. In view of the statement of medical witness, compensation amount, which has been awarded by the Tribunal, appears to be on lower side. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 50 per day. ( 14 ) THE learned Tribunal has awarded rs. 57,600 after assessing annual income of the claimant at Rs. 18,000 per annum. Out of which, he assessed permanent disability to the extent of 40 per cent thereby assessed annual earning loss at Rs. 7,200, which has been multiplied by 8 and awarded compensation amount of Rs. 57,600 as earning loss, this amount appears to be just and reasonable, looking to 40 per cent disability and the income rightly assessed by the Tribunal. ( 15 ) LEARNED Tribunal has awarded expenses for the treatment at Rs. 2,882 only. This appears to be on lower side wherein appellant sustained grievous injuries. It is not necessary for the claimant to preserve all the bills of the treatment, therefore, in my considered opinion, the amount of expenditure incurred in treatment is liable to be enhanced at Rs. 5,000, looking to the grievousness of the injuries. Similarly, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for pain and suffering at Rs. 5,000 only. This also appears to be on lower side. This amount is also liable to be enhanced to Rs. 10,000, in view of the injuries sustained by him. Similarly, learned Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 2,000 for expenses on special diet and Rs. 1,000 for journey expenses. On both the counts, claimant is entitled to get Rs. 10,000 in view of the long treatment of the injuries concerned. This amount is also liable to be enhanced to Rs. 10,000, in view of the injuries sustained by him. Similarly, learned Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 2,000 for expenses on special diet and Rs. 1,000 for journey expenses. On both the counts, claimant is entitled to get Rs. 10,000 in view of the long treatment of the injuries concerned. ( 16 ) THUS, total compensation amount will come to Rs. 57,600 for permanent disability, Rs. 5,000 for expenses on treatment, Rs. 10,000 compensation for pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000 for expenses of special diet and expenses for journey, etc. Thus, the total compensation amount will come to Rs. 82,600. In addition to that, appellant is also entitled to get Rs. 20,000, which has been awarded by the learned tribunal for future expenses of the treatment, etc. Thus, compensation amount will come to Rs. 1,02,600 (rupees one lakh two thousand six hundred), which the appellant is entitled to get from the respondents. ( 17 ) RESULTANTLY, the appeal filed on behalf of appellant insurance company being without any merit is dismissed accordingly, whereas cross-objection filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 is allowed and it is held that respondent No. 1 is entitled to get total compensation amount of Rs. 1,02,600 (rupees one lakh two thousand six hundred) from the appellant and respondent nos. 2 and 3 jointly and severally instead of compensation amount of Rs. 90,000 as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of Rs. 12,600 (rupees twelve thousand six hundred) will also bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. Both the parties shall bear their own costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000, if certified. Appeal dismissed. .