JUDGMENT : Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—The applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and delay in filing the cross objections is hereby condoned. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard and since all these appeals and cross objections relate to one incident and arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, they are being decided finally at this stage, by this common judgment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.4.2000, Manohar Jasnani, Ravi @ Ravindra Agarwal and Anil Agarwal were going from Jaipur to Tonk in Car No. RJ 14 C 4096. No sooner did they reach 4 kms. ahead of Motuka Baroni Police Station towards Tonk, suddenly a truck No. RJ 02 G 2884 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the car, as a result of which Ravi Agarwal and Manohar Lal Jasnani Succumbed to injuries and Anil Agarwal sustained grievous injuries and Maruti Car was also severely damaged. 4. Thereafter the claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of deceased Manohar Lal Jasnani and Ravi Agarwal, and Anil Agarwal himself on account of injuries sustained by him and one claim petition was filed on account of damage of Maruti Car in the said accident. Notices were issued; reply was filed; certain issues were framed and after hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the judgment and award dated 7th August, 2010, whereby it decreed Rs. 6,55,000/- as compensation in claim petition No. 229/2004 (Smt. Meena Jasnani & Ors. vs. M/s. R.K. Minerals & Ors.); Rs. 7,22,000/- as compensation in claim petition No. 230/2004 (Smt. Sunita Agarwal & Ors. vs. M/s. R.K. Minerals & Ors.), Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation in claim petition No. 232/2004 (Anil Kumar Agarwal vs. M/s. R.K. Minerals & Ors.); and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation in claim petition No. 231/2004 (Smt. Sunita Agarwal vs. M/s. R.K. Minerals & Ors.). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Insurance Co. filed Civil Misc. Appeals before this Court and this Court vide judgment dated 18.8.2011 while setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, remanded the matter to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh qua issues No. 3 & 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Insurance Co. filed Civil Misc. Appeals before this Court and this Court vide judgment dated 18.8.2011 while setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, remanded the matter to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh qua issues No. 3 & 4. Pursuant thereto, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award dated 3.9.2012, decreeing an amount of Rs. 8,17,610/- as compensation in favour of claimants Meena Jasnani & Ors. in claim petition No. 229/2004; Rs. 9,15,477/- as compensation in favour of claimants Sunita Agarwal and Others in claim petition No. 230/2000; Rs. 10,000/- as compensation in favour of claimant Sunita Agarwal in claim petition No. 231/2004 on account of damage of Maruti Car; and Rs 4,54,332/- as compensation in favour of claimant Anil Kumar in claim petition No. 232/2004 on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident, but the liability has been fastened upon the Insurance Co. to pay the quantum of compensation to the claimants and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, four appeals have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation; and being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, four appeals have been filed by the Insurance Co. and three cross objections have been filed by the non claimant-cross objector. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. has contended that in the Motor Vehicles Act there is a provision that if the Insurance Policy is obtained on account of non-disclosure of a material fact or by representation of a fact which is false in some material particulars, the policy would be treated to be void and Insurer would not be liable under such policy. In the instant case, the insurance of the truck in question was obtained by Rais Khan by concealing the material facts and by giving false statement, as such in view of the provisions of Section 149(2) readwith Section 149(4) of the MV Act, 1988, the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay the compensation. In the instant case, the insurance of the truck in question was obtained by Rais Khan by concealing the material facts and by giving false statement, as such in view of the provisions of Section 149(2) readwith Section 149(4) of the MV Act, 1988, the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay the compensation. He has further contended that in the instant case, Rais Khan was not the owner of the offending vehicle, as such he had not insurable interest in the truck in question, resultantly no proposal could have been given by Rais Khan for getting the insurance done of the said vehicle nor the insurance could have been done in his name, whereas while obtaining the cover note, it was contended by Rais Khan that aforesaid vehicle Truck No. RJ 02/G 2884 had been purchased by him from M/s. R.G. Minerals (Pvt.) Limited. He has further contended that registered owner of vehicle Truck No. RJ 02/G 2884 submitted two applications before the Tribunal, wherein it was mentioned that Naimuddin filed the reply on behalf of R.G. Minerals (Pvt.) Limited, whereas Naimuddin had no concerned whatsoever with R.G. Minerals (Pvt.) Ltd. and the vehicle in question had been purchased by Naimuddin from R.G. Minerals (Pvt.) Ltd. on 25.4.2000. In this view of the matter, on the date of commencement of the Insurance or the date of accident Naimuddin and /or Rais Khan were having no ownership over the truck in question and thus, they could not have submitted the proposal nor the insurance could have been done in their favour. He has further contended that despite the fact that Rais Khan was not having the amount equivalent to premium in his account, despite that he issued the cheque and obtained the cover note keeping the Insurance Co. in dark. He has further contended that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the provisions of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Manner of Receipt of Premium) Regulations. He has further contended that the amount awarded under the head of future prospects is excessive in nature and the Tribunal has also wrongly applied the multiplier. He has further contended that Sunita Agarwal has utterly failed to prove her ownership over the Maruti Car No. RJ 14C 4096 and that the said car was damaged in the alleged accident, but despite that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation. He has further contended that Sunita Agarwal has utterly failed to prove her ownership over the Maruti Car No. RJ 14C 4096 and that the said car was damaged in the alleged accident, but despite that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal should be quashed and set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the Tribunal has not properly taken into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and awarded a very meager amount of compensation. The income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He has further contended that the tribunal has not applied the proper multiplier and awarded less amount towards the love and affection. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified. 8. With regard to maintainability of cross objections, learned counsel for the cross objector (s) has contended that for filing the cross objections it is not required that the appeal should be admitted. Provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 contemplates that upon hearing, respondent may object to decree or part of decree as if he had preferred a separate appeal. Provisions of sub-rule 1 of Rule 22 provides that any respondent may prefer cross objections to a decree which he could have taken by way of appeal, provided he has filed such objections in the appellate court within one month from the date of service upon him or his pleader for notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal or within such further time as the appellate court may deem fit to allow. He has further contended that in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 11, 12 and 14, the cross objections filed by PG Minerals (Pvt.) Ltd. are maintainable after it had received the notice for hearing the appeal. He had further contended that the Tribunal while giving direction to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle has committed error. From the record, it was proved that the cover note in this case was issued by the agent of the Insurance Co. on 16.4.2000 covering the risk of the vehicle w.e.f. 17.4.2000 to 16.4.2001. At the time of issuance of this cover note, physical verification of the vehicle was also done. From the record, it was proved that the cover note in this case was issued by the agent of the Insurance Co. on 16.4.2000 covering the risk of the vehicle w.e.f. 17.4.2000 to 16.4.2001. At the time of issuance of this cover note, physical verification of the vehicle was also done. Unfortunately, the cheque given for the payment of premium was dishonoured and the Insurance Co. had got information of the same on 20.4.2000. On the same day, premium in cash was paid to the Insurance Company and admittedly for the same proposal form, the vehicle was got insured. That means, it was insured for the period from 17.4.2000 to 16.4.2001. Later-on, the Insurance Co. by manipulation, had over-written the proposal form and the proposal dates was changed from 21.4.2000 to 20.4.2001. In these circumstances, the only inference which could have been drawn is that just to avoid the liability, the Insurance Co. had over written this document and prepared a fresh cover not in its record, which was produced as Ex. A/8 with period of insurance as 21.4.2000 to 20.4.2001. In fact, the vehicle was insured w.e.f. 17.4.2000 to 16.4.2001 and was covering the date of accident and neither the Insurance Co. can be exonerated from the liability of paying compensation nor it can be given a right of recovery against the respondent cross objector. He has further contended that it was the duty of the Insurance Co. to prove that the cover note/policy which was issued on 16.4.2000 has ever been cancelled by it or the intimation of the same was given to the respondent cross objector. He has further contended that Ex. A/6 and A/6A make it quite clear that this so called cancellation letter had been written on 20.4.2000, but it had not been sent on the address of the respondent cross objector. In these circumstances, it was not a case that the cover note issued on 16.4.2000 was cancelled and as such the Insurance Co. could not have been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation and nor it could have been given a right of recovery the respondent cross objector. The vehicle involved in the case was insured on the date of accident and as such the finding of the Tribunal, by which the Insurance Company has been given a right of recovery against the respondent cross objector, deservies to be quashed and set-aside. The vehicle involved in the case was insured on the date of accident and as such the finding of the Tribunal, by which the Insurance Company has been given a right of recovery against the respondent cross objector, deservies to be quashed and set-aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter ad-longum and rightly decided all the issues. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter ad-longum and rightly decided all the issues. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under: ^^izn'kZ , 1 tks chek izLrko gS]mls ns[kus ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd fnukad 17-4-2000 ls 16-4-2001 rd tks chek djus dk izLrko fn;k x;k gS] mls 21-4-2000 ls 20-4-2001 rd dkVdj fd;k gS] ysfdu fdl O;fDr }kjk dkVk x;k gS] mlds y?kq gLrk{kj Hkh bl dfVax ij ugha gS] u gh bls jbZlk [kka }kjk dkVk x;k gS vkSj jbZl [kak }kjk ,slk dksbZ izLrko chek dEiuh dks ugha fd;k fd chek dks fnukad 21-4-2000 ls 20-4-2001 rd djsa] cfYd mlds }kjk rks ;g fy[kk x;k gS fd ;fn mldk pSd vuknfjr gks x;k gS] rks mlds cnys os udn jkf'k ys ysa vkSj ml udn jkf'k dks chek dEiuh us fy;k gS vkSj chek fd;k gSA chek dEiuh us tks ikWfylh fujLr dh gS] og Hkh fnukad 19-4-2000 ds i'pkr dh gS] tcfd nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gqbZ gS vkSj ikWfylh fujLr djus dh lwpuk u rks chfer dks nh vkSj u gh vkjVhvks dks nhA bl fLFkfr esa chek dEiuh izfrdj vnk djus gsrq gS fd mlus vkjVhvks dks ikWfylh fujLr djus dh lwpuk ns nh gksA bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; U;w bafM;k ,';ksjsal dEiuh fy- cuke [kkrwu o vU; 2012 , lh ts 767 is'k fd;k gSA bl U;kf;d fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd pSd vuknfjr gksus ij bU';ksjal dEiuh us doj uksV dsfUly dj fn;k] ftldh lwpuk ekfyd dks nh xbZ] ysfdu bl rjg dh dksbZ lk{; ugha Fkh fd vkjVhvks dks Hkh bl rF; dh lwpuk ns nh xbZ gks] bl fLFkfr esa vf/kdj.k ds bl fu.kZ; dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us lgh ekuk fd bU';ksjsal dEiuh izfrdj jkf'k tek djk;sxh vkSj fQj mls okgu Lokeh ls olwy djsxhA bl U;kf;d fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dk chek dEiuh }kjk ,lh 381 ¼,llh½ Hkh jsQj fd;k x;k gS rFkk 2009¼4½ Vh,lh 382 ¼,llh½ Hkh jsQj fd;k x;k gS rFkk 2009¼1½ Vh,lh 10 ¼,llh½ us'kuy bU';ksjsal dEiuh cuke vHk;flag izrki flag o 2008¼1½ Vh,lh 417 ¼,llh½ esa Hkh ,slk gh er vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gSA pwafd bl izdj.k esa chek dEiuh dh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gS] ftlls ;g lkfcr gksrk gks fd mUgksaus chek ikWfylh fujLrhdj.k dh lwpuk vkjVhvks dks ns nh gks] bl fLFkfr esa bl izdj.k esa pwafd fnukad 19-4-2000 dks mDr okgu chfer Fkk vkSj ikWfylh ckn esa fujLr dh xbZ gS] ftldh lwpuk vkjVhvks dks Hkh ugha nh xbZ gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa chek dEiuh izfrdj jkf'k vnk djus gsrq mRrjnk;h gS] ftls og ckn esa okgu Lokeh ls olwy dj ldrh gSA** 11. I am in further agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal in its impugned judgment and award, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:- ^^izdj.k la[;k 229@2004 Jherh ehuk tlukuh o vU; cuke vkj th feujYl ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us larks"k nsoh cuke us'kuy bU';ksjsal dEiuh fy- 2012 ,lhts 1428 ¼,llh½ ds U;kf;d fu.kZ; esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd Lofu;ksftr O;fDr ;k fuf'fpr etnwjh ij dke djus okys O;fDr Hkh ;wpj izksLisDVl ds :i esa 30 izfr'kr jkf'k izkIr djus dk gdnkj gSAbl rjg 652008 dk 30 izfr'kr 195602 :i;s dh jkf'k Hkh ;wpj izksLisDVl ds :i esa izkFkhZx.k izkIr djus ds gdnkj gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k dks e`rd dh e`R;q ls gqbZ vkfFkZd gkfu 652008$195602 = 847610 :i;s rFkk 5000 :i;s lEink dh gkfu] 5000 :i;s nkg laLdkj dk [kpkZ rFkk 10000 :i;s izkFkhZ ehuk tlukuh dks nkEiR; lq[k ls oafpr gksus o vU; izkFkhZx.k dks okRlY; o izse lq[k ls oafpr gksus ds dkj.k fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k dks izkIr dqy izfrdj jkf'k 847610$5000$5000$10000 = 867610 :i;s izkIr gksrh gSA izkFkhZx.k us 50000 :i;s /kkjk 140 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr izfrdj izkIr dj fy;k gS] vr% mDr jkf'k dqy izfrdj jkf'k esa lek;ksftr gksxh] vr% 'ks"k jkf'k 867610&50000 = 817610 :i;s gh izkFkhZx.k foi{khx.k ls la;qDr :i ls ;k i`Fkd i`Fkd :i ls izkIr djus ds gdnkj gSA izdj.k la[;k 230@2000 lquhrk vxzoky o vU; cuke vkj th feujYl o vU; ds laca/k esa vr% izkFkhZx.k dks izkIr dqy izfrdj jkf'k 48486x15=727290 :i;s gksrh gSA larks"k nsoh cuke us'kuy bU';ksjsal dEiuh fy- 2012 ,lhts 1428 ¼,llh½ds U;kf;d fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj Lo;a fu;ksftr ;k fuf'fpr etnwjh ij dke djus okys O;fDr dks Hkh ;wpj izksLisDVl ds :i esa 30 izfr'kr jkf'k nh tkuh pkfg;sA vr% 727290 dh 30 izfr'kr jkf'k 218187 :i;s gksrh gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k dks izkIr dqy izfrdj jkf'k 727290 $ 218187 = 945477 :i;s gksrh gS o 5000 :i;s lEink dh gkfu] 5000 :i;s nkg laLdkj dk [kpkZ rFkk 10000 :i;s izkFkhZ lquhrk vxzoky dks nkE;R; lq[k ls oafpr gksus o vU; izkFkhZx.k dks okRlY; lq[k ls oafpr gksus ds vk/kkj ij fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k dks izkIr dqy izfrdj jkf'k 945477$5000$5000$10000= 965477 :i;s gksrh gSA pwafd izkFkhZx.k us 50000 :i;s /kkjk 140 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr izfrdj izkIr dj fy;k gS] vr% mDr jkf'k bl izfrdj jkf'k esa lek;ksftr gksxh] vr% izkFkhZx.k 'ks"k jkf'k 965477&50000=915477 :i;s foi{khx.k ls la;qDr :i ls ;k i`Fkd i`Fkd :i ls izkIr djsaaxsA bl jkf'k ij ;kfpdk is'k djus dh frfFk fnukad 5-5-2000 ls vnk;xh rd N% izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt Hkh foi{khx.k vnk djsaxsA mDr jkf'k bl vf/kfu;e dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds vUnj vUnj vnk djuh gksxhA izdj.k la[;k 231@2004 lquhrk vxzoky cuke vkj th feujYl o vU; mijksDr lk{; ls foospu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkfFkZ;k ua- izn'kZ 11 losZ fjiksVZ rS;kj djus okys losZ;j dks U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha fd;k gS] ftl dkj.k losZ;j dh fjiksVZ lkfcr ugha gks ldh gSA blds vykok izkfFkZ;k us ;g Hkh Li"V ugha fd;k gS fd dkj ftl dEiuh ds ;gka chfer Fkh] ml dEiuh ls dkj dh {kfr dk Dyse izkIr fd;k gS ;k ugha] fdUrq vizkFkhZ jktho }kjk is'k tokc ls ;g rks lkfcr gS fd jktho us bl dkj dks e`rd jfo vxzoky dks foØ; dj nh FkhA gkykafd jfo vxzoky ds uke jftLVªs'ku ugha gqvk Fkk] ysfdu dkj jfo vxzoky ds gh dCts esa Fkh vkSj mlds jftLVMZ Lokeh us dkj dh {kfr ds fy, Dyse ugha fd;k gS cfYd mlus rks jfo vxzoky dks foØ; djus dk dFku fd;k gSA dkj dk ;kfU=d ijh{k.k izn'kZ 8 gqvk gS] ftlds voyksdu ls tkfgj gksrk gS fd dkj batu ckWMh] Qz.V cEQj ,oa LVs;fjax Vk;j jkM {kfrxzLr gq, gSaA ckWMh fipd xbZ vkSj okgu pyus dh gkyr esa ugha Fkk] D;ksafd LVkVZ ugha gks jgk Fkk] blfy, ;g rks Li"V gS fd dkj bl nq?kZVuk esa {kfrxzLr gqbZ gSA i=koyh esa QksVks layXu gS] mlls Hkh dkj {kfrxzLr gksuk lkfcr gksrk gSa mDr dkj lu~ 1991 dk ekWMy Fkk] nq?kZVuk lu~ 2000 esa gqbZ Fkh vkSj djhc 10 izfr'kr jkf'k izfro"kZ dkjds ewY; esa deh gksuk LokHkkfod gSA 10 gtkj :i;s esa dkj foØ; dj nh xbZ gS vkSj bl fLFkfr esa dkj dh dher dh ux.;rk dks ns[krs gq, izkFkhZ dks dkj dh {kfr ds :i esa 10000 :i;s fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA izdj.k la[;k 232@2004 vfuy dqekj cuke vkjth feujYl o vU; geus i{kdkjku ds rdksZ o i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ij xkSj fd;kA ;g lgh gS fd vk; ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ us dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugha dh gS] ysfdu e`rd euksgjyky ds ;gka izkFkhZ dke djrk Fkk] bl laca/k esa euksgjyky tlikuh dh iRuh izkfFkZ;k , MCYkw 2 ehuk tlokuh dk dFku gS fd mls 3500 :i;s ekfld ru[okg nsrs FksA 3500 :i;s ekfld ru[okg ,d U;wure etnwjh ds leku gS] blfy, izkFkhZ dh ekfld vk; 3500 :i;s ekuk tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA 1000 :i;s deh'ku ds lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ dh lk{; Li"V ugha gS fd fdl izdkj 1000 :i;s deh'ku izkFkhZ dek ysrk FkkA ;g Hkh lkfcr ugha gS fd izkFkhZ Lo;a euksgj yky ds ;gka dke djrk Fkk] rks deh'ku fdl izdkj izkIr djrk FkkA blfy, izkFkhZ dh ekfld vk; U;wure etnwjh ds fglkc ls 3500 :i;s izfrekg ekuk tkuk gh U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dh mez 19 o"kZ ?kVuk ds le; Fkh] blesa dksbZ fookn ugha gS] vr% ljyk cuke MhVhlh ds U;k; n`"Vkar ds vuqlkj izfrdj gsrq xq.kkad 18 gksxkA izkFkhZ dks 32 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fu'kDrrk dkfjr gqbZ gS] bl rjg izkFkhZ dks izkIr izfrdj jkf'k 3500 bUVw 12 bUVw 18 bUVw 32@100 = 241920 :i;s gksrh gSA izkFkhZ dks 100000 :i;s mldh vka[kksa dh LFkkbZ jks'kuh tkus ds fy, o isu] lQfjax ,oa Vªksek ds fy, fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA bl rjg 100000 :i;s mls mlds thou dh lqfo/kk ls oafpr gksus ds fy, Hkh fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA** 12. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to take a different view than that of the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Hence, all the aforesaid appeals and cross objections, being without any substance, are hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.