JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by the award dated 24.3.2006 passed by the M.A.C.T., Jaora in Claim Case No.44 of 2005 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was allowed and compensation of Rs. 2,01,500 was awarded on account of death of one Kantilal aged 54 years who died in a motor accident which took place on 21.11.2004, the present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that appellants filed a claim petition alleging that on 21.11.2004 when Kantilal was going on foot, he was dashed by the offending tractor, as a result he sustained injuries and died and tractor also turned turtle, with the result respondent No.1 also sustained injuries. The claim petition was contested by respondent No.2 on various grounds including on the ground that respondent No.1 was not possessing a valid driving licence who was also owner of the vehicle and since deceased Kantilal was travelling in the said tractor, therefore, there was breach of policy and respondent No.2 is not liable for compensation. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation as stated above, against which the present appeal has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal assessed the income at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses applied the multiplier of 8. It is submitted that application of multiplier of 8 is on lower side as deceased was in the age group of 50-55 years. It is submitted that since deceased was agriculturist and was owner of 16 bighas of land and was doing part-time job of accounts, therefore income assessed is on lower side. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and amount be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that amount awarded is just and proper. It is submitted that cross-objections have been filed by respondent No. 2 to the effect that since deceased was travelling on the mudguard of the tractor and in the F.I.R. also which was lodged immediately after the accident this fact has come, therefore learned Tribunal committed error in holding the respondent No. 2 liable for compensation. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding the respondent No. 2 liable as respondent No. 1 was not possessing a valid driving licence. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding the respondent No. 2 liable as respondent No. 1 was not possessing a valid driving licence. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed and cross-objections filed by respondent No. 2 be allowed and award be modified accordingly. 4. From perusal of record it appears that appeal was admitted on 31.10.2007 while respondent No. 2 filed the power on 22.12.2007 and the cross-objections have been filed on 5.1.2009, i.e., after lapse of 1 year, therefore same cannot be entertained. So far as income is concerned, since accident is of the year 2004, therefore income appears to be just and proper. So far as application of multiplier of 8 is concerned, the same appears to be on lower side which ought to have been 11. So far as liability of respondent No. 2 is concerned, since the respondent No. 1 was owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and efforts were made by the respondent No. 2 to call the respondent No. 1 in witness-box, therefore learned Tribunal was not justified in not giving the right of recovery to respondent No. 2 only on the ground that respondent No. 2 failed to examine the R.T.O. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and compensation is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 90,000 which shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. Since respondent No. 1 is owner-cum-driver, therefore, respondent No. 2 shall have a right of recovery from the respondent No. 1. In case the right is exercised by respondent No. 2, then respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to demonstrate that on the date of accident, respondent No. 1 was possessing valid driving licence. With the aforesaid observation, appeal is disposed of.