JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants against the award dated 31.1.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in MACT Case No. 8 of 20.1.1996. 2. A claim petition was filed by the parents of Rajinder Singh, who was aged about 26 years and was working in JCT Mills, Mohali. He was drawing Rs. 3,000/- p.m. He died on a road accident 19th December, 1995. An FIR No. 31 dated 19.12.1995 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Rupnagar. The compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. six lacs) was claimed. 3. It was claimed that on 19.12.1995 Rajinder Singh, deceased along with Kulwant Singh and Krishan Singh was going from Rupnagar towards Nangal side in a Contessa car bearing No. PB-27/2829. When they reached near Bharatgarh at about 7.30 p.m. a truck bearing No. CH-013848 (T) came from opposite direction which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligence manner. The said truck struck against the car. As the result of the impact, Rajinder Singh and other occupants of the car received multiple injuries. Injured were removed to the Civil Hospital and, thereafter to Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh. Rajinder Singh was sent back to Civil Hospital, Rupnagar, where he died on 24.12.1995. It was alleged that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck No. CH-01-3848 (T). 4. The claim was contested and it was claimed by respondent No. 1 that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Contessa car. An application was moved by respondent No. 2 claiming that respondent No. 2 was not the owner of the said truck, but one Bal Krishan Lal was the owner of the vehicle, who was impleaded as respondent No. 4. The Insurance Company denied the accident, whereas respondent No. 4 also took the similar stand. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : "1. Whether Rajinder Singh died and Kulwant Singh received injuries in an accident dated 19.12.1995 in the area of the village Bharatgarh, caused by truck No. CH-01-3848 (T) driven by Gurdas respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently ? OPP 2. To what compensation the claimants are entitled to ? If so from whom ? OPP 3. Whether Rajinder Singh died and Kulwant Singh received injuries in an accident dated 19.12.1995 in the area of the village Bharatgarh, caused by truck No. CH-01-3848 (T) driven by Gurdas respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently ? OPP 2. To what compensation the claimants are entitled to ? If so from whom ? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 Gurdas was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR 4. Relief." On issue No. 1 the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 i.e. the truck driver. On issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,87,200/- though the claimants were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,80,800/- but keeping in view the fact that lump-sum compensation was to be paid, the learned Tribunal ordered a deduction of 1/3rd amount out of the said compensation. In order to reach this conclusion, the reliance was placed on a judgment in the case of Haneet v. C.T. Paul and others, 1996 ACJ 325. The learned Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased Rajinder Singh at Rs. 2,700/- per month after deduction the amount of house rent and additional house rent being received by him. Out of this income, the dependency was assessed at Rs. 1,800/- per month and a multiplier of 13 was applied. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has challenged the findings on issue No. 2 primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal was not justified in ordering the deduction of 1/3rd from the assessed compensation on account of lump sum payment. 7. On the other hand, Mr. L.M. Suri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, respondent No. 3, contended that the impugned award cannot be sustained as the claimants, who were the parents of the deceased, were aged 57 and 50 years respectively and therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in applying the multiplier of 13. The contention of the learned senior counsel was that the multiplier can never exceed 10 even more liberal standard as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Shri Laxman Iyer and another, 2004(1) PLR 446. The contention of the learned senior counsel was that the multiplier can never exceed 10 even more liberal standard as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Shri Laxman Iyer and another, 2004(1) PLR 446. Learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and others v. Raj Kumar and others, 376 : 1998(3) PLR 553 to contend that in the case of a person of the age of 60 years, multiplier of 8 was applied by this Court. The contention of the learned senior counsel was that for applying a multiplier the age of the parents was to be taken into consideration and not the age of the deceased as has been applied in the present case by the learned Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the respondent Insurance Company having not filed any appeal or cross-objection, is not entitled to contest the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Banarsi and others v. Ram Phal, 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 639 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that the Tribunal cannot pass a decree which is prejudice to appellant-defendant and to the advantage of the respondent-plaintiff when the respondent-plaintiff failed to file any appeal or the cross-objection. The learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Appasani Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy and another v. Chekka Veera Raja Rao and others, 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 530 to contend that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure can only be applied if such relief has a direct and inseparable link with the other relief so that without which the latter relief could not have been granted. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Rajasthan High Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Jodhpur v. Mery Anthony Emnas Daulat Crist and others, AIR 2005 NOC 5 (Raj.) to contend that Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not give right to the respondent or the non-appellant to claim any relief. The part of the relief granted to the appellant by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge having not been challenged, the provisions of Order 41 of Rule 33 CPC cannot be invoked in favour of respondent the non-applicant without there being any challenge to the multiplier which has become final. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not open to the respondent-Insurance Company to challenge the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal in absence of any appeal or cross-objections against the impugned award. There is also force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that there was no justification for deducting 1/3rd amount on account of lump-sum payment out of the assessed compensation. This part of the impugned award cannot be sustained as no deduction could be ordered on account of the fact that lump-sum compensation is to be paid. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The compensation payable to the claimants is enhanced to Rs. 2,80,800/- as assessed by the learned Tribunal. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest on this amount as granted by the learned Tribunal. Appeal allowed.