ORDER : N.K. Mody, J. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 3080/07, as both the appeals are arising out of award dated 07/09/07 passed by II M.A.C.T., Dewas whereby two claim petitions were allowed and compensation was awarded holding respondent Nos. 1 to 3 liable for payment of compensation. In M.A. No. 3801/07 award under challenge is passed in Claim Case No. 77/06, while in M.A. No. 3080/07 award is passed in Claim Case No. 76/06. Short facts of the case are that claimants in both the appeals filed claim petitions before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 27/01/06 at about 8.30 A.M. deceased Avdhesh Raghuvanshi and Bharat Bhatia were travelling in a Indica Car bearing registration No. MP/04-HT/8317, which was being owned and driven by one Anil Yadav. It was alleged that when the said Indica Car reached to Chinotha Jod, at that time met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No. MP/09-KD/2756 which was coming from opposite direction and was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that because of accident driver and owner of Indica Car Anil Yadav and also Avdhesh Raghuvanshi and Bharat Bhatia died on spot. It was prayed that the claim petitions be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim petitions were contested by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 on various grounds. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed both the claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs. 12,39,000/- in M.A. No. 3801/07 and a sum of Rs. 7,35,000/- in M.A. No. 3080/07 and respondent No. 4 was exonerated, against which both the appeals have been filed. 2. In M.A. No. 3080/07 wherein Mr. Anand Chouhan is the counsel for appellants submits that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 5,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded a sum of Rs. 7,35,000/-, breakup of which is as under :-- Towards loss of dependence Rs. 7,20,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 3. 5,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded a sum of Rs. 7,35,000/-, breakup of which is as under :-- Towards loss of dependence Rs. 7,20,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 3. It is submitted that the income of the deceased assessed by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate, as the deceased was income tax payee of whom income tax returns are on record, which are marked as Ex. P/34 to Ex. P/38. It is submitted that apart from salary which was Rs. 60,000/- per year, deceased was also commission agent for supplying the labourers and was getting income of Rs. 50,000/- approximately from other sources. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in not taking into consideration the income of the deceased from other sources, which are well proved and well supported by the documentary evidence. It is submitted that on other heads also amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that the appeal filed by appellants be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced. 4. In M.A. No. 3801/07 Mr. S.S. Nahar counsel for appellants submits that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 9,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses applied the multiplier of 17 and awarded a sum of Rs. 12,39,000/-, breakup of which is as under :-- Towards loss of dependence Rs. 12,24,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 5. It is submitted that the deceased was well qualified and was in a secured job. It is submitted that the deceased was appointed with Tata Teleservices Ltd. as is evident from the appointment letter Ex. P/32. It is submitted that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 18,152/- per month, but the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration only basic pay of Rs. 9,000/- per month, which is grossly inadequate. It is submitted that future prospects has also not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced. 6. Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal in both the cases is on higher side. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced. 6. Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal in both the cases is on higher side. It is submitted that in the matter of Avdhesh Raghuvanshi deduction of 1/3rd is on lower side, which out to have been one half. It is submitted that since the deceased were not in secured job as Avdhesh Raghuvanshi was in a private job, while Bharat Bhatiya was on probation and recently joined, therefore, no question of future prospects arises. It is submitted that since both of them were occupant of the Indica Car, therefore, it was a case of joint tort feasors for the appellants in both the appeals. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Tribunal was not justified in exonerating respondent No. 4. It is submitted that both the appeals filed by appellants be dismissed and cross-objection filed by respondent No. 3 be allowed and that part of the award whereby respondent No. 4 has been exonerated be modified by holding the responsibility of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 jointly and severely. 7. Mr. S.S. Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 submits that after due appreciation of evidence learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of negligence of respondent No. 1, who was driver of the truck. It is submitted that since the owner and driver of the offending car is not impleaded as party, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated respondent No. 4 as respondent No. 4 indemnify the liability of owner. It is submitted that in the present case no doubt owner died, but his legal representatives ought to have been impleaded as party. It is submitted that criminal case was also registered against respondent No. 1. Learned counsel further submits that cross-objection filed by respondent No. 3 is not maintainable against respondent No. 4. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of Divisional Bench in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Javitri Devi and Others, (2005) ACJ 2131, wherein this Court has held that cross-objections filed by the claimant are not maintainable against owner and driver in an appeal filed by the Company. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of Divisional Bench in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Javitri Devi and Others, (2005) ACJ 2131, wherein this Court has held that cross-objections filed by the claimant are not maintainable against owner and driver in an appeal filed by the Company. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case both the appeals filed by appellants and also cross-objection filed by respondent No. 3 have no merits and the same be dismissed. 8. Evidence was recorded in Claim Case No. 76/06. Documentary evidence is on record as Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/61. Apart from this appellants have examined AW/1 Anjali Bhatiya, AW/2 Ashok Upadhyaya, AW/3 Rakesh Vyas and AW/4 Harshali Mahajan. While respondent No. 3 has examined Dilip Kale (Surveyor) and also respondent No. 1 driver of the truck as NAW/2. Survey report is on record alongwith photographs, which shows that in what circumstances accident occurred. In the report it is mentioned that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of driver of Indica Car. Criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1, but respondent No. 1 himself has appeared before the learned Tribunal to explain that in what circumstances accident occurred. AW/2 Ashok Upadhyaya is also eye witness, who has stated that in what circumstances the accident occurred. Statement recorded in criminal case u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are not on record. Outcome of criminal case is also not on record. Since the accident occurred on a State Highway and both the vehicles were going in opposite direction at the relevant time, therefore, it was a case of composite negligency so far as appellants are concerned as the deceased were occupant. In the facts and circumstances of the case learned Tribunal was not justified in exonerating respondent No. 4. On the contrary respondent Nos. 1 to 4 ought to have been held liable jointly and severely. 9. Apart from this Section 155 of Motor Vehicles Act deals with effect of death, which reads as under:-- 155. In the facts and circumstances of the case learned Tribunal was not justified in exonerating respondent No. 4. On the contrary respondent Nos. 1 to 4 ought to have been held liable jointly and severely. 9. Apart from this Section 155 of Motor Vehicles Act deals with effect of death, which reads as under:-- 155. Effect of death on certain causes of action.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the death of a person in whose favour a certificate of insurance had been issued, if it occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to a claim under the provisions of this Chapter, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of the said event against his estate or against the insurer. 10. So far as contention of respondent No. 4 that cross-objections are not maintainable against a co-respondent is concerned, law laid down in the matter of Javitri (Supra) is not applicable in this case. In the present case no cross-objection has been filed by respondent No. 3 against respondent No. 4. In this case appeal is filed by claimants and not by Insurance Company. Respondent No. 3 is challenging the findings of learned Tribunal whereby learned Tribunal held respondent No. 1 liable for the accident, while as per respondent No. 3 as per the evidence on record, driver of both the vehicles were equally liable for the accident. In the circumstances arguments raised by respondent No. 4 regarding maintainability of the cross-objections cannot be upheld. 11. It is true that owner and driver of the offending Indica Car are not on record, but since Anil Yadav who was the owner and was also driving the vehicle at the relevant time died, therefore, it was practically not possible to implead him as party. 12. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, in M.A. No. 3080/07 wherein deceased is Avdhesh Raghuvanshi, no doubt income tax returns are on record, but all the returns are for the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 and were submitted on 09/03/06, while Avdhesh Raghuvanshi died on 27/01/06. There is no explanation that why returns were not filed by Avdhesh Raghuvanshi himself in his life time in the relevant financial year. In the circumstances income of Avdhesh Raghuvanshi assessed by the learned Tribunal @ Rs. There is no explanation that why returns were not filed by Avdhesh Raghuvanshi himself in his life time in the relevant financial year. In the circumstances income of Avdhesh Raghuvanshi assessed by the learned Tribunal @ Rs. 5,000/- per month appears to be just and proper. Since the dependent on the deceased is only appellant No. 1 i.e. Master Arpit aged three years, therefore, also it appears that the income assessed is just and proper. However, since the deceased was in a secured job, though was in a private job, therefore, some amount ought to have been awarded on account of future prospects. Hence, a case of enhancement is made out. In my opinion it will be proper to enhance the compensation by Rs. 2,50,000/-. Thus appellants in M.A. No. 3080/07 shall be entitled for a total sum of Rs. 9,85,000/- instead of Rs. 7,35,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% RA. from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 1 under guardianship of appellant No. 2 in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant No. 1 is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of appellant No. 1, which shall be opened by the appellant No. 1 from where appellant No. 1 can withdraw the amount as per his needs. However, on an application by the appellant No. 1 this condition could be modified by the learned tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant No. 1. 13. So far as M.A. No. 3801/07 wherein deceased is Bharat Bhatiya is concerned, undoubtedly Ex. P/32 is appointment letter dated 14/01/06 wherein salary for which he was offered was Rs. 18,152/- per month. According to the appellants deceased joined the services on 24/01/06. As per appointment letter deceased was to join at Raipur. Accident took place on 27/01/06 when deceased Bharat Bhatiya was going in the Indica Car from Indore to Bhopal. P/32 is appointment letter dated 14/01/06 wherein salary for which he was offered was Rs. 18,152/- per month. According to the appellants deceased joined the services on 24/01/06. As per appointment letter deceased was to join at Raipur. Accident took place on 27/01/06 when deceased Bharat Bhatiya was going in the Indica Car from Indore to Bhopal. If all the facts are taken to be true, then it appears that immediately after joining, deceased left from Raipur to Indore and again started for Bhopal when he met with the accident. Sufficient evidence is on record that the deceased was having good academic background and also was in job right from 1997. Earlier he was in the job and was getting salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month in the year 1998-2000 and thereafter his salary was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- in the year 2000-2004 and thereafter the deceased was kept by Tata Commercial at the salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month excluding other perk of which gross salary comes to Rs. 19,000/- per month. In the circumstances it can safely be said that the salary for which deceased was employed was Rs. 18,000/- per month. But at the same time this fact cannot be ignored that no income tax return has been filed by the deceased. Right from 2001-02 to 2005-06 the tax was payable on the income above Rs. 50,000/- and in the year 2006-07 to 2007-08 the tax was payable on the income above Rs. 1,35,000/-. There is nothing on record that any amount of tax was paid at any point of time by the deceased. As per service conditions also deceased was recently appointed and was on probation for a period of six months. The employer Harshali Mahajan has appeared as witness on behalf of employer and has also stated that a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- was paid to the widow of deceased as Ex-gratia under employees deposit scheme. But this fact cannot be ignored that the deceased was already in employment of Tata Motors. There is no evidence to the effect that in fact the deceased joined the service on 24/01/06 at Raipur except oral statement of Harshali Mahajan (Administrative Officer). However, a case of enhancement is made out. In my opinion it will be proper to enhance the compensation by Rs. 5,00,000/-. Thus, appellants in M.A. No. 3801/07 shall be entitled for total sum of Rs. However, a case of enhancement is made out. In my opinion it will be proper to enhance the compensation by Rs. 5,00,000/-. Thus, appellants in M.A. No. 3801/07 shall be entitled for total sum of Rs. 17,39,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 1 in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant No. 1 is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of appellant No. 1, which shall be opened by the appellant No. 1 from where appellant No. 1 can withdraw the amount as per her needs. However, on an application by the appellant No. 1 this condition could be modified by the learned tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant No. 1. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. Copy of the order be placed in the record of M.A. No. 3080/07.