JUDGMENT By Court: This appeal is Vehicle Claim Tribunal against the judgment and award of learned Motor l, Hazaribag, whereby the respondents No.1 and 2 claimants have been awarded the compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till realization. 2. The said claim petition was preferred by the claimants-respondents on account of death of Late Karu Mian. Claimant No.1 is the son and claimant No.2 is the widow of said Karu Mian, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 4.7.1999. It was claimed that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle – Truck No. BR-13-H-9231. 3. According to the claimants, on 4.7.1999 Late Karu Mian was traveling from his village Sardarpur to Simaria and when he reached at village Kesath, the offending truck coming from behind rashly and negligently dashed Karu Mian causing severe injuries in his feet. The incident was reported to the local Police immediately. On the written report of the informant Karu Mian, Chauparan P.S. Case No.85 of 1999 dated 4.7.1999 was registered under Sections 279/337/338 I.P.C. Karu Mian was then taken to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag where in course of treatment in the Hospital, he succumbed to his injuries and died. However, Police after investigation submitted a final report showing no clue and no trace of the driver of the truck. 4. In the claim case the owner of the truck was opposite party No.1 while National Insurance Co. Ltd. was opposite party No.2. Both the opposite parties had appeared and filed their written statements denying the said claim. 5. In his written statement, the opposite party No1 Anil Kumar Sinha -the owner of the offending vehicle, stated, inter alia, that he has been unnecessarily dragged in the case. The allegations in the claim petition against his vehicle is wholly false and baseless. His vehicle did not meet with any such accident on the alleged date of occurrence. On the date of occurrence, however, i.e. on 4.7.1999 his truck bearing No. BR-13-H-9231 was insured with the opposite party No.2 -National Insurance Co. Ltd. The said opposite party challenged the maintainability of the case against him and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The National Insurance Co. On the date of occurrence, however, i.e. on 4.7.1999 his truck bearing No. BR-13-H-9231 was insured with the opposite party No.2 -National Insurance Co. Ltd. The said opposite party challenged the maintainability of the case against him and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.-opposite party No.2 in its written statement denying liability and stated, inter alia, that the claim of monthly income said to be earned by the deceased and mentioned in the claim petition is false and baseless. The claimants are not entitled to get compensation either under Section 140 or Section 166 of the M.V. Act. There is nothing on record to show that the alleged truck had caused any such injuries which ultimately caused death of Karu Mian. Even the investigating Officer is not able to ascertain the name of driver and owner of the offending vehicle. They prayed for liberty to take all defence available under the terms and conditions of the policy as well as under the M.V. Act and the rules. They also disputed and denied the claimants' allegation that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. However, it was admitted by the opposite party that their record shows that the offending vehicle was insured with them on the alleged date of occurrence. 7. On the basis of the said pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- (i) Whether the case is maintainable ? (ii) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing Registration No. BR-13-H-9231 causing death of Karu Mian ? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled for the amount of compensation claimed and if yes, to what extent and against which of the opposite parties ? 8. The claimants and the opposite parties led their evidences, oral and documentary. 9. Learned Tribunal thoroughly scrutinized the facts, materials and evidences on record and decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and allowed the claim petition filed by them directing the National Insurance Co. Ltd. -opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-as the compensation to the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till realization, as aforesaid. 10. The instant Misc. Appeal (M.A. No.96/2008) has been preferred by National Insurance Co. Ltd. -opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-as the compensation to the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till realization, as aforesaid. 10. The instant Misc. Appeal (M.A. No.96/2008) has been preferred by National Insurance Co. Ltd. assailing the said judgment and award of learned Claim Tribunal. 11. The main grounds taken in this appeal are that the claim of the appellant has not been substantiated by any cogent material or documentary evidence. P.W. No. 2. is a highly interested witness. His Evidence has been fully relied upon by learned Tribunal in arriving at the finding and fastening liability on the appellant. A criminal case was lodged on the fardbeyan of the deceased himself and there was an investigation on the basis of the said fardbeyan, but it was found to be a case of no clue. Neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle could be traced or found. The Police submitted final form. A complaint case was lodged by the claimants which was also ultimately dismissed. Thus, learned Tribunal has committed serious error in holding that the appellant is liable for payment of compensation, though from the facts and material on record Section 166 of the M.V. Act is not attracted. The case, at best, is fit for payment of compensation under the provision of Sections 161, 162 and 163 of the said Act. 12. Mr. D.C. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that learned Tribunal has committed serious error of facts and law in arriving at its conclusion without taking into consideration the clear observation of the Investigating Officer that there was no clue to the case that BR-13-H-9231 was involved in the said accident. He has further erred in relying upon the statement of the most interested witness. The judgment and award of the learned Tribunal is, thus, not supported by the sufficient evidence and material and is liable to be set aside. 13. On the other hand, aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation amount, the claimants have preferred cross objection being C.O. No. 11 of 2008 which was also admitted along with this appeal - M.A. No.96/2008 - for hearing along with this appeal. 14. The Misc. Appeal and Cross Objection have been taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by this judgment. 15. 14. The Misc. Appeal and Cross Objection have been taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by this judgment. 15. In the Cross Objection the claimants-respondents have challenged the validity of the judgment/award of learned Tribunal mainly on the ground that in the claim petition the claimants have made the claim of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The evidences were also adduced that the monthly income of Karu Mian was Rs. 4,000/-per month. However, learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/-on the basis of arbitrary calculation of Rs. 50/-per day. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum which is very low, the claimants are entitled to get higher rate of interest at least @ 11% per annum. 16. Mrs. Banani Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in Appeal and on behalf of the claimants in Cross Objection, submitted that there are ample materials and cogent evidences on record to prove that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle and Karu Mian had sustained injury and ultimately succumbed to the injury in the hospital, in course of treatment. P.Ws. No.1 and 2 had accompanied Karu Mian on the same vehicle and they are most natural/competent witnesses to support the claim and establish the other attending facts. It is true that P.W.2 was claimant himself but his evidence is fully corroborated and supported by P.W.1, who is the independent witness. P.W.2 was also present at the scene and he had witnessed the incident. His evidence cannot be discarded because he is the claimant in the case. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the appellant to falsify the said weighty evidence of the P.W.Nos. 1 and 2. Learned Tribunal has, thus, rightly considered and relied upon the said evidences and came to the finding that the accident was caused by the said offending vehicle and that late Karu Mian had sustained injuries and ultimately died due to the said accident. Learned counsel submitted that while determining the quantum of compensation learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the appellants' claim and evidences on record and has erroneously awarded a very meagre amount of compensation with a very low rate of interest. 17. Mr. D.C. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, on the other hand, questioned the maintainability of the cross objection. 17. Mr. D.C. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, on the other hand, questioned the maintainability of the cross objection. Learned counsel submitted that only liability of the insurance can be challenged in this appeal. Cross Objection is not maintainable for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The appellant has not challenged the amount of compensation and, as such, no cross objection of the claimant is maintainable. Learned counsel referred to and relied on decision of the then Patna High Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd Vrs. Maimun Nusha & Ors. [reported in 1997(1) TAC 475 (Pat)]. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Salauddin Abdul Khadar Maniyar & Anr. [reported in 2009(2) TAC 701 (Kant.)]. 18. Considering the grounds taken by the parties and submission made in course of argument, the following points fall for consideration:- (I) Whether the findings of learned Tribunal is sound, legal and valid ? (II) Whether cross-objection filed by the respondents is maintainable ? FINDINGS : Re. Point No.(I) 19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I meticulously scrutinized the facts, evidences and materials on record. 20. I find that the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the certified copies of the F.I.R. and Post-Mortem Report fully support the claim of the respondents. From the evidence, I find that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. BR-13-H-9231 and Karu Mian died on 5.7.1999 due to accident, in course of treatment in the hospital. I further find that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd.-the appellant. The said Company is, thus, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 21. I further find that learned Tribunal has duly considered the relevant facts and materials and has rightly determined the quantum of compensation. He has considered that though it was claimed that Karu Mian was earning Rs. 4,000/-per month, no chit of paper was brought before the Tribunal in support thereof. He has assessed his income @ Rs.1500/-per month and annual income at Rs. 18,000/-and has determined the compensation in accordance with the table provided under Section 163A of the M.V. Act. I find no infirmity in the said findings. The findings of learned Tribunal is perfectly valid, sound and legal. Re. Point No.(II) 22. He has assessed his income @ Rs.1500/-per month and annual income at Rs. 18,000/-and has determined the compensation in accordance with the table provided under Section 163A of the M.V. Act. I find no infirmity in the said findings. The findings of learned Tribunal is perfectly valid, sound and legal. Re. Point No.(II) 22. Though the respondents have filed Cross Objection challenging the quantum of compensation, I find no ground made out and supported from the evidence and material on record. 23. Adverting to the objection of the appellant regarding maintainability of the Cross Objection, in my opinion, there is no bar for the claimant to prefer cross objection, if the appeal is filed and the respondent feels aggrieved by any finding recorded in the judgment/award. The provision for filing cross objection is given in detail in Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nothing has been brought to my notice as to why the same principle and provision be not applicable in the appeal filed under the Motor Vehicle Act. The decision in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the appellant, appears to be rendered without taking into consideration the aforesaid principle of cross objection and with due respect to the learned Judges I find myself unable to agree with the said view expressed in the said decision. 24. In the conclusion, though I am of the view that there is no bar in filing cross objection, I find no merit in the cross objection. Neither I find any ground made out for interfering with the findings of learned Tribunal. 25. In the result, the appeal fails and the cross objection is dismissed.