JUDGMENT 1. This is a claimant’s appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 29.7.2005 passed by the Additional Member, MACT, Ujjain in Claim Case No.2/2005. By the impugned award, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the claimant filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,250/- to Madan Singh for the injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident. According to the insurance company i.e. non-applicant No.3 who also filed cross-objections; the compensation awarded to the claimant is on the higher side and was awarded by applying wrong principles under the Act and both the insurance company as well as the claimant have challenged the award in this appeal. 2. The crucial question arises for consideration in this appeal is that whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding a total compensation of Rs.2,25,250/- to the claimant for the permanent disability sustained by him due to the injuries occurred in the accident and whether the cross-objections filed by the insurance company are maintainable since it is also barred by law of limitation. Further I find that it is not necessary to go into the question as to how the accident occurred and who was liable to suffer the liability arising out the accident since both the owner and driver were ex parte and have not challenged the award. So also none appeared on their behalf in this appeal also and hence the award has become final against them. Similarly the insurance company has not challenged the finding regarding its liability to pay compensation. The only question, therefore, would be whether the cross-objections filed by the insurance company are within time and maintainable. 3. Briefly stated, the appeal pertains to the injury case of the claimant and the accident occurred on 7.3.2003 at 12:15 p.m. in the afternoon when the claimants were travelling on the Ujjain-Indore Road near village Badodiya. As they approached near the Khan Nag temple, their motor cycle bearing registration No. MP09/YB-4331 was dashed from the opposite direction by an Tata Indica Car No. MP09/B-1740 and owned by non-applicant No.2 Ritesh Jain and driven rashly and negligently by Praffula Salecha non-applicant No.1, as a result Kailash who was driving the motor cycle and Madansingh who was the pillion rider were grievously injured and sustained fractures in the accident. The motor cycle was also badly damaged. The motor cycle was also badly damaged. Both the claimants Kailash as well as Madansingh sustained permanent disability and hence filed the claim that they were earning Rs.6,000/- per month and due to the injuries sustained, they were unable to carry on their regular duties and compensation be paid. Both the claimants were initially treated in the Primary Health Centres at Sanwer and Ujjain Charitable Trust Hospital and Research Centre, Ujjain. They were treated by Dr. S.K. Sharma PW3. Whereas claimant Kailash filed claim for Rs.4,25,000/-, the present appellant claimant Madan Singh claimed Rs.8,40,000/-. The non-applicants No.1 and 2 remained ex parte; whereas non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed reply denying the accident and the fact that the compensation demanded was quite excessive considering the fact that they had not received any grievous injuries and bills produced were fraudulent and not proved by the doctor. The insurance company also stated that the treatment was taken at Salecha Nursing Home and not at the Charitable Hospital as was being claimed. There were violation of condition of insurance policy and the motor cycle driver did not have valid licence and the claimants were themselves equally responsible for the accident. It also rejected the plea that the appellants earned Rs.6,000/- each per month. The Tribunal however on considering the claim held the non-applicants No.1 and 2 to be jointly and severally liable and awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,250/- to the present claimant Madansingh and Rs.40,300/- to the other claimant Kailash. This appeal has been filed by appellant Madansingh alone. 4. On considering the submissions of the counsel for the appellant, the award has been challenged on the ground that it was grossly inadequate and the Tribunal had erred in deducting 1/3rd of the monthly income of the appellant as well as the multiplier prescribed under the Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act has not been complied since the appropriate multiplier would be 18 and the Tribunal has also erred in assessing and granting compensation to the appellant despite the overwhelming evidence available on record. Moreover, the appellant had suffered two fractures on the right femur and right fibula resulting in 60 per cent disability and no amount had been awarded towards the permanent disability and the future prospects and loss due to occupational inability. Moreover, the appellant had suffered two fractures on the right femur and right fibula resulting in 60 per cent disability and no amount had been awarded towards the permanent disability and the future prospects and loss due to occupational inability. Similarly the amount awarded for the pain and suffering was grossly inadequate and meager sum had also been awarded for special diet to the appellant. Counsel urged that no amount had been awarded for the loss of income during the period of treatment and the appellant had been hospitalised for 8 to 9 months. The medical expenses were also on the lower side, despite the fact that the expenditure is proved and the long duration in hospital and the treatment is completely ignored. The Tribunal had also erred in not granting any amount for conveyance and attendant charges. Considering the fact that the appellant would require surgery treatment in future, no amount was awarded towards general damages on the basis of the total loss for the earning capacity and loss of expenditure of life and amenities of life. Moreover, the interest awarded also needed to be enhanced. 5. Counsel relied on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [ 2011 ACJ 2436 ], whereby the apex Court had held that while considering the permanent disability that it means loss or impairment of earning power and does not mean loss of a member of the body. When the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury and the apex Court had enhanced the compensation. Similarly relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another [ 2011 ACJ 1 ], counsel stated that the apex Court had given several guidelines in the said case regarding the assessment of the disability in case of injury and had categorically held that while computing future loss of earning 1/3rd or any other poercentage to be deducted was not proper and had directed that it differs on the facts and circumstances of each case and only in a fatal case it was necessary to make the said deduction. Counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned award judgment and prayed that appropriate amount be awarded to the claimant. 6. This brings us to the question of cross-objections raised by the insurance company. Council for the non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company has raised two objections regarding the physical disablement and loss of earning capacity of the claimant. Counsel contended that exorbitant and excessive amount had been paid under the head of loss of earning capacity by the Tribunal. Secondly, counsel contended that the loss of earning capacity had to be considered under priviso to section 163A of the M.V. Act which stipulates that loss of earning capacity is to be considered in terms of Schedule 1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Whereas the learned Judge of the M.A.C.T. has calculated the loss under the Schedule II of the M.V. Act. At this juncture, counsel for the appellant raised objection that the cross-objections were hit by limitation as they were not filed within time. Whereas the appeal has been filed on 22.11.2005, the cross-objections have been filed on 12.9.2006. Placing reliance on Katoribai and others v. Jagannath and others [ 2007 ACJ 1637 ], counsel stated that our Court had held in the said case that no permission was sought by the insurance company from the Tribunal under section 170 and hence the defences would not be available to the insurance company and the cross-objections of the insurance company in appeal by the claimants challenging the quantum of compensation was not maintainable. Relying on Ranjeet Singh and another v. Bhagwan Singh and another [2007 SCJ 1629], counsel stated that when the cross-objections were filed after more than one month of service of notice of appeal without any application for condonation of delay, then the Court had held that cross-objections are time barred and in the instant case also counsel stated that the cross-objections be dismissed. 7. Counsel for the respondent-insurance company, on the other hand has vehemently opposed the grounds of limitation raised by the counsel for the appellant and stated that no permission was required to challenge the findings on the award. In fact he stated that there was no need to file cross-objections. 7. Counsel for the respondent-insurance company, on the other hand has vehemently opposed the grounds of limitation raised by the counsel for the appellant and stated that no permission was required to challenge the findings on the award. In fact he stated that there was no need to file cross-objections. By placing reliance on Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam and others [ AIR 1999 SC 3571 ], counsel stated that the apex Court had held that the respondent can always question adverse findings against it without filing of cross-objections, it is optional and not mandatory. Counsel for the respondent vehemently urged the fact that there had been excessive amount assessed due to loss of earning capacity and relying on Workmen’s Compensation Act of Schedule 1. Counsel stated that only 15 per cent loss of earning capacity ought to have been calculated. He however considered the fact that the Tribunal had erred in applying the appropriate multiplier and multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. He also fully justified the medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal since he stated that there was no evidence produced by the claimant. He stated that only a marginal enhancement was required under the circumstances. He, however, fully supported the amount awarded and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. On considering the above submissions, the evidence on record and the impugned award, I find that the cross-objections filed by the respondent-insurance company are time barred since the notices of the appeal were served on the respondent No.3 and counsel has filed power on 3.1.2006 whereas the cross-objections have been filed on 12.9.2006 and I also place reliance on Ranjeet Singh (supra), whereas counsel for respondent-Insurance Company has relied on Ravinder Kumar Sharma (supra), which is of no help to him since matter pertained to a decree passed by a civil Court and there was no bar as u/s 170 of the M.V. Act. 9. Further the next important question is whether the award has been wrongly assessed? 9. Further the next important question is whether the award has been wrongly assessed? I find it would be proper to assess the income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum and the personal permanent disability of 60% deriving the loss of income to Rs.14,400/- per annum; however the total amount under this head has been erroneously calculated by applying the multiplier of 11; whereas under Schedule II of the M.V. Act is should have been 18 since the claimant is held to be 30 years old according to the Tribunal. So also since the claimant is not a labourer the Workmen’s Compensation Act would not be attracted. Thus, the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in calculating the compensation under this head and it is, therefore, set aside and reassessed as follows : Rs.14,400 x 18 = Rs.2,59,2090/-. Further, I find that Rs.51,000/- have been rightly awarded for the medicines due to the bills produced, and no fault can be found with Rs.10,000/- paid for the pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- for loss of income for the period he has remained in hospital. Therefore, the amount would come to Rs.2,59,200 + Rs.51,850 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.5,000 = Rs.3,26,050/-. However, no amount is awarded towards future treatment and conveyance and attendant charges. And a lump sum of Rs.24,000/- would be appropriate under the circumstances under this head. In other words the claimant is held entitled to a total sum of Rs.3,50,050/- (Rs. Three lacs fifty thousand and fifty only) as compensation for the injuries and permanent disability sustained by the claimant Madansingh. 10. The compensation awarded to the claimants has to be just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the Courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. 11. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The awarded sum of Rs.3,50,050/- (Rs. It is on this basis, the Courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. 11. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The awarded sum of Rs.3,50,050/- (Rs. Three lacs fifty thousand and fifty only) will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. No costs.