JUDGMENT : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. 1. Since all these appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the said Act’) arise out of the same accident, they are being decided together by this common judgment. 2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that on 11.04.2010, various villagers were proceeding to village Borgaon for attending a marriage ceremony in a tractor-trolley. Amongst those villagers were Ashwin Wandhare aged about 11 years, Mahesh Kajarkhane aged about 13 years and Meghraj Kurjekar aged about 26 years. The said tractor was being driven by one Dipak Kawale. It was owned by Praful Kale and it was duly insured with the HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited. On account of rash and negligent driving the said tractor-trolley turned turtle as a result of which the persons travelling therein sustained various injuries. The aforesaid three persons succumbed to the injuries caused in the accident. The parents of Ashwin filed Claim Petition No.2 of 2011 and the Claims Tribunal while adjudicating the same on 11.02.2013 awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. It directed the insurer to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter permitted it to recover the said amount from the owner of the tractor. The insurer has filed First Appeal No.855 of 2015 challenging that direction which held it liable to first pay the compensation and then recover it from the owner. The owner of the tractor-trolley has filed First Appeal No.461 of 2015 challenging the said judgment. The claimants in turn have filed cross-objections alongwith an application for condonation of delay. They have sought enhancement in the amount of compensation. The parents of Mahesh filed Claim Petition No.103 of 2010 and the Claims Tribunal by its judgment dated 30.01.2015 granted compensation of an amount of Rupees Three Lakhs. The insurer was directed to first pay the amount of compensation and then recover it from the owner of the tractor. That adjudication has been challenged by the owner of the tractor by filing First Appeal No.1060 of 2015. The legal heirs of Meghraj have filed Claim Petition No.165 of 2010. The Claims Tribunal by its judgment dated 30.01.2015 has awarded a sum of Rs.5,84,000/- with a similar direction to the insurer to first pay the amount of compesation and then recover the same from the owner of the tractor. The legal heirs of Meghraj have filed Claim Petition No.165 of 2010. The Claims Tribunal by its judgment dated 30.01.2015 has awarded a sum of Rs.5,84,000/- with a similar direction to the insurer to first pay the amount of compesation and then recover the same from the owner of the tractor. That adjudication has been challenged by the owner of the tractor by filing First Appeal No.1068 of 2015. 3. Shri D.N. Kukday, learned counsel for the insurer in First Appeal No.855 of 2015 submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in directing the insurer to first satisfy the award and then recover the amounts in question from the owner of the vehicle. According to him, the record indicates that about 30 to 35 persons were travelling in the said tractor as a part of the marriage party. The insurance policy did not cover the risk of such persons who were travelling gratuitously. The risk covered was only of the owner of the tractor and four of his employees. As the risk of the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy such a direction to first pay the amount of compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the tractor could not have been issued. In that regard, he placed reliance on the decisions in Traders Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad & Another Versus Sunanda Krishna Machivale & Others, (2009) 1 MhLJ 898 , New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Lilabai Shrimant Misal & Others, (2014) 4 ACC 395, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rattani & Others, (2009) 1 ACC 417, Chandrakant Versus Majlasbai & Others, (2018) 1 ACC 232 and New India Assurance Co Ltd. Versus Mirabai Parshuram Chaudhari & Others, (2013) 3 ACC 744. It was thus submitted that as the victims were not ‘third parties’ such a direction was contrary to the law as laid down. 4. Shri A.N. Ansari, learned counsel for the claimants in First Appeal No.855 of 2015 supported the impugned judgment as regards the direction issued to the insurer to first pay the amount of compensation and then recover the same from the owner. According to him, the risk of the deceased was duly covered as premium had been paid to cover the risk of 4+1 persons under the policy. Since there were only three claim petitions, the insurer was not liable to be exonerated. According to him, the risk of the deceased was duly covered as premium had been paid to cover the risk of 4+1 persons under the policy. Since there were only three claim petitions, the insurer was not liable to be exonerated. In any event, the direction to pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same was rightly issued. He submitted that similar directions issued in Claim Petition Nos.103 of 2010 and 165 of 2010 arising from the same accident were not challenged by the insurer. Hence that direction did not call for any interference. He referred to the decisions in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus K.M. Poonam & Others, (2015) 15 SCC 297 and Shamanna & Another Versus Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, (2018) AIR SC 3726 in support of his submissions. As regards the cross-objections, it was submitted that the delay in filing the same deserves to be condoned. According to him, it was the duty of the Claims Tribunal to award just and fair compensation. As the same was not awarded, the claimants were required to file crossobjections. Referring to the decision in Kishan Gopal & Another Versus Lala & Others, (2013) 10 Scale 580 , it was submitted that in case of death of victim aged about 10 years, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had awarded compensation of an amount of Rupees Five Lakhs and hence similar compensation deserves to be awarded. He also referred to the decision in Perumayee & Others Versus P. Chinnasamy, Driver, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Madurai Division & Others,2018 1 TNMAC 51 in that regard. It was thus submitted that the crossobjections deserve to be allowed. 5. Shri P.S. Verma, learned counsel for the owner of the tractor and appellant in First Appeal No.461 of 2015 as well as First Appeal Nos.1060 of 2015 and 1068 of 2015 submitted that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company. He referred to the evidence of the claimants to indicate that they were not sure as to the manner in which the accident took place. There was a doubt as to whether the deceased were travelling in the tractor and therefore occurrence of the accident itself was in doubt. He submitted that the tractor-trolley had been engaged for carrying firewood. He referred to the evidence of the claimants to indicate that they were not sure as to the manner in which the accident took place. There was a doubt as to whether the deceased were travelling in the tractor and therefore occurrence of the accident itself was in doubt. He submitted that the tractor-trolley had been engaged for carrying firewood. After unloading that firewood, the driver permitted the members of the marriage party to travel in the tractor. There was breach of instructions on the part of the driver and it was not possible for the owner of the tractor to keep a close watch on his activities. As the owner of the vehicle as not guilty of any breach of any conditions of the insurance policy, there was no reason to exonerate the Insurance Company. He placed reliance on the decision in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Versus National Insurance Company, (2014) AIR SC 305 and submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable to be exonerated. 6. Shri A.N. Ansari, learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand supported the impugned adjudication. According to him, there was sufficient documentary material on record to indicate occurrence of the accident. The said documents would prevail and the Claims Tribunal rightly discarded the evidence of the driver who had not stated the true picture before the Tribunal. The direction to pay and recover the amount had been rightly issued and the same did not require any interference. It was thus submitted that the appeals filed by the owner were liable to be dismissed. Shri A.J. Pophaly, learned counsel for the insurer in both the appeals stated that till date the judgment of the Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No.103 of 2010 and Claim Petition No.165 of 2010 had not been challenged by the Insurance Company. 7. In the light of aforesaid submissions, the following points arise for adjudication:- (i) Whether the Insurance Company was liable to satisfy the claim for compensation? (ii) Whether the claimants in Claim Petition No.2 of 2011 are entitled for enhanced compensation? 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have perused the records of the case. It is seen that though the proceedings arise from the same accident, Claim Petition No.2 of 2011 was adjudicated first in time on 11.02.2013. (ii) Whether the claimants in Claim Petition No.2 of 2011 are entitled for enhanced compensation? 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have perused the records of the case. It is seen that though the proceedings arise from the same accident, Claim Petition No.2 of 2011 was adjudicated first in time on 11.02.2013. The other two claim petitions came to be adjudicated on 30.01.2015. It would have been preferable that all the claim petitions arising from the same accident ought to have been decided together. Be that as it may, it is seen that the insurer has challenged the adjudication in Claim Petition No.2 of 2011 by preferring First Appeal No.855 of 2015. The Insurance Company is aggrieved by the direction to first pay the amount of compensation and then recover it from the insured. However, similar directions issued by the Claims Tribunal have been accepted by the Insurance Company in two claim petitions but it has challenged similar directions issued in the third claim petition. In the light of the admitted position that one accident has given rise to different claims based on the same insurance policy, the challenge as raised to such directions only in one claim petition does not deserve to be entertained especially when similar directions issued in the other two claim petitions has been accepted by the same Insurance Company. It would be unjust to entertain such challenge only in one claim petition when the same direction has not been challenged in other two claim petitions. Though it was strenuously urged by Shri D.N. Kukday, learned counsel for the insurer in First Appeal No.855 of 2015 that considering the nature of the insurance policy and the risk covered, the direction to first pay and then recover the said amount from the owner could not have been issued in the light of the law as laid down in the decisions relied upon by him, accepting that stand only in one claim petition would result in inconsistent directions operating in other two claim petitions where no such challenge has been raised. Hence for aforesaid reasons, as the Insurance Company has accepted similar directions issued in Claim Petition Nos.103 of 2010 and 165 of 2010, I am not inclined to examine the isolated challenge in Claim Petition No.2 of 2011. Hence for aforesaid reasons, as the Insurance Company has accepted similar directions issued in Claim Petition Nos.103 of 2010 and 165 of 2010, I am not inclined to examine the isolated challenge in Claim Petition No.2 of 2011. It is thus held that the Insurance Company is not liable to be exonerated and the direction to pay and recover the amount of compensation deserves to be maintained. This would however be subject to following the law as laid down as regards the manner in which such direction has to be worked out. Point No.(i) stands answered accordingly. 9. As regards the prayer for enhancement of compensation in Claim Petition No.2 of 2011, it is found that the delay in filing the crossobjections has been reasonably explained. The prayer is to enhance the amount of compensation and it being the duty of the Claims Tribunal to award just compensation under Section 166 of the said Act, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the cross-objections. Though the prayer as made is opposed by the learned counsel for the insurer, the reasons for the cause of delay are found acceptable and the delay accordingly stands condoned. Civil Application (O) No.27337 of 2018 is accordingly allowed. 10. According to the learned counsel for the claimants since deceased was a young boy aged 11 years, the amount of compensation ought to be adjudicated in the light of the law as laid down in Kishan Gopal & Another (supra) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted an amount of Rupees Five Lakhs as compensation for the death of a child aged about 10 years. On the other hand, Shri D.N. Kukday, learned counsel for the insurer by relying upon the decision in Syed Ibrahim & Others & R.K. Malik & Another (supra) submits that the amount of compensation as awarded of Rs.1,50,000/- was reasonable not warranting any interference. It is to be noted that in Claim Petition No.103 of 2010, the deceased was aged about 13 years. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rupees Three Lakhs as compensation. This adjudication has not been challenged by the insurer which has accepted the said award. In Kishan Gopal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Lata Wadhva (supra) and observed that the claimants therein were well placed officials of TISCO. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rupees Three Lakhs as compensation. This adjudication has not been challenged by the insurer which has accepted the said award. In Kishan Gopal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Lata Wadhva (supra) and observed that the claimants therein were well placed officials of TISCO. On the basis of that consideration, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rupees Five Lakhs. Reference was also made to the income being earned by the parents for adjudicating the amount of compensation. In the present case, however such evidence is not available on record. However as noted above, the insurer has accepted the award as passed in Claim Petition No.103 of 2010 wherein the Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rupees Three Lakhs as compensation. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the insurer indicate grant of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation where the victim is a minor child. Thus, keeping in mind the ratio of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties and in the light of the fact that the Insurance Company has not challenged the award in Claim Petition No.103 of 2010, I am inclined to award similar compensation of an amount of Rupees Three Lakhs to the claimants in Claim Petition No.2 of 2011. Point No.(ii) stands answered accordingly. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed:- I. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal in Claims Petition No.2 of 2011 dated 11.02.2013 is partly modified. It is held that the claimants are entitled to receive total compensation of Rupees Three Lakhs including the amount paid towards No Fault Liability. The enhanced compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- is payable jointly and severally by the respondent nos.1 to 3 to the claim petition with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. II. The respondent no.3 shall first satisfy the claim in question and thereafter it is at liberty to recover the said amounts from the owner of the vehicle. The Claims Tribunal shall consider the law as laid down in Pramod Kumar Agrawal & Others Versus Mushtari Begum & Others, (2005) 3 ACC 357 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Challa Bharathamma & Others, (2004) 3 ACC 292 in that regard. 12. The Claims Tribunal shall consider the law as laid down in Pramod Kumar Agrawal & Others Versus Mushtari Begum & Others, (2005) 3 ACC 357 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Challa Bharathamma & Others, (2004) 3 ACC 292 in that regard. 12. First Appeal No.855 of 2015 is thus dismissed. Cross-Objection Stamp No.27336 of 2018 is partly allowed in aforesaid terms subject to the Court fees being paid by the claimants on that basis. First Appeal No.461 of 2015 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Similarly, First Appeal Nos.1060 of 2015 and 1068 of 2015 also stand dismissed with no order as to costs.