ORDER : 1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by award dated 15.07.2008 passed by Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua, in Claim Case No. 46/2007. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company after referring to FIR Ex.P/1 submits that it has been lodged by pillion rider but therein no details of offending motorcycle i.e. color make, model etc are mentioned and neither the name of driver, is mentioned therein. It is mentioned in FIR that rider of motorcycle fled away from the scene of accident immediately. The incident is dated 20.01.2007, FIR was lodged on 20.01.2007 and motorcycle has been seized on 20.03.2007. Chargesheet has been filed on 22.03.2007. Appellant has not examined Ganpat who lodged FIR. The appellants have examined Jhetu (PW-2) but his name is not mentioned in any documents prepared immediately after the accident. This witness has stated that he knows injured but he did not take him to hospital. This witness has also not lodged any FIR. (PW-1) has not stated anything about Jhetu in his deposition. On above grounds, it is submitted involvement of offending vehicle in the accident is not proved. Hence, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 3. Relying upon United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Salauddin Abdulkhadar Maniyar and Another, 2009 ACJ 524 (Karnataka) it is urged that where the Insurance Company has challenged involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and has disputed the liability, then cross objections for enhancement of award are not maintainable. The respondents/claimants should have separately filed the appeal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no enhanced amount is required to be paid to the respondents/claimants. On above grounds, it is urged that appeal be allowed and Insurance Company be exonerated from liability to pay the compensation. 4. The respondents/claimants should have separately filed the appeal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no enhanced amount is required to be paid to the respondents/claimants. On above grounds, it is urged that appeal be allowed and Insurance Company be exonerated from liability to pay the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants after relying upon Urmila Devi and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another, 2020 ACJ 771 , Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajesh Devi and Others, 2018 (1) ACJ 301, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Janki Devi and Others, 1982 ACJ 429 , National Insurance Company Limited vs. Shaikh Kuddush and Others, 2021 ACJ 1149 , Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs. T. Selvarani and Others, 2017 ACJ 396 , submits that in the instant appeal, cross-objections are maintainable for enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, after referring to Para Nos. 15 to 24 of impugned award, submits that after investigation into the present accident, police has filed the charge-sheet against the rider of offending vehicle who was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and has caused the accident. Jhetu is a independent witness and there are no grounds to disbelieve him. 6. It is also urged that learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the accident has been caused by offending vehicle. It is also urged that in the case of motor accident, strict rules of evidence is not applicable and the case can be proved by preponderance of probability. In this connection, he has relied upon various citations such as Manful and Another vs. Mehmood and Others, 2003 (4) MPLJ 174 and Sneha Saularam Bankar and Others vs. Hanumant Vaman Pednekar and Another, 2016 ACJ 1976 . 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants after referring to Kusmi Devi vs. Mohd. Kasim and Another, 2023, ACJ 1658, Kishan Gopal and Another vs. Lala and Others, 2013 ACJ 2594 and Ratan and Another vs. Rakesh Jain and Another, 2014 ACJ 2308 submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and the Tribunal ought to have been awarded minimum Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 8. On above grounds, it is urged that appeal filed by appellant-Insurance Company be dismissed and cross-objections filed by respondents/claimants shall be allowed and respondents/claimants be awarded just and proper compensation in the instant case. 9. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 8. On above grounds, it is urged that appeal filed by appellant-Insurance Company be dismissed and cross-objections filed by respondents/claimants shall be allowed and respondents/claimants be awarded just and proper compensation in the instant case. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Maintainability of Cross-Objection: 10. So far as the maintainability of cross objections filed by the respondent/claimants is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant after relying on the judgment in the case of United Insurance Company Limited vs. Salauddin Abdulkhadar Maniyar and Another, 2009 ACJ 524 submits that in the instant appeal appellant/Insurance Company has challenged its liability to pay compensation and also involvement of the offending vehicle. Hence, cross objections are not maintainable whereas learned counsel for the respondent after relying on the judgments in the cases of Urmila Devi and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another, 2020 ACJ 771 , Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajesh Devi and Others, 2018 (1) ACJ 301, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Janki Devi and Others, 1982 ACJ 429 , National Insurance Company Limited vs. Shaikh Kuddush and Others, 2021 ACJ 1149 , Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs. T. Selvarani and Others, 2017 ACJ 396 , submits that cross objections are maintainable. 11. With respect to controversy between the parties it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 242 of M.P. Motor Vehicles Act which reads as under: “242. Form of appeal and contents of memorandum: (1) Every appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal shall be preferred in duplicate in the form of memorandum signed by the appellant or an Advocate or Attorney of the High Court duly authorised in that behalf by applicant and shall be presented within ninety days from the date of the award to the Registrar of the High Court or to such officer authorised by him in this behalf. The Memorandum shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the award. (2) The memorandum in sub-rule (1) shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds of objection to the award appealed from without any argument or narrative; and such ground shall be numbered consecutively. The Memorandum shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the award. (2) The memorandum in sub-rule (1) shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds of objection to the award appealed from without any argument or narrative; and such ground shall be numbered consecutively. (3) Save as provided in sub-rule (1) and (2) the provisions of Order XXI and Order XLI of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) shall mutatis mutandis apply to appeals preferred to the High Court under Section 173.” 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Urmila Devi and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another, 2020 ACJ 771 (three judges Bench judgment) after referring to the provisions of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, held that when appeal filed by Insurance Company is restricted only to denial of its liability to make payment of compensation, even in such cases, cross objections on behalf of the claimants are maintainable. 13. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajesh Devi and Others, 2018 ACJ 301 , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Janki Devi and Others, 1982 ACJ 429 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Shaik Kuddush and Others, 2021 ACJ 1149 it is held that in appeal filed by Insurance Company, cross objections filed by the claimants are maintainable. 14. In view of above, in this Court's considered opinion cross objections filed by the claimants in the instant appeal are maintainable. Involvement of Offending Vehicle: 15. So far as involvement of offending vehicle in the instant accident is concerned, it is correct that accident occurred on 20.01.2007 and FIR Ex.P-1 has also been lodged on 20.01.2007 and therein it is mentioned that accident occurred from some unknown motorcycle and number of motorcycle and name of driver are not mentioned therein. As per recovery/seizure memo, Ex.P-3, motorcycle has been recovered on 20.03.2007 and driver has been arrested on 20.03.2007 vide arrest memo Ex.P-4. 16. Perusal of record of the case reveals that Ex.P-9's charge sheet has been filed against respondent no. 1 under Section 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC after investigation with respect to instant accident and therein it is mentioned that respondent Magan caused instant accident while riding TVS motorcycle MP-45-BA-6585 rashly and negligently. 16. Perusal of record of the case reveals that Ex.P-9's charge sheet has been filed against respondent no. 1 under Section 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC after investigation with respect to instant accident and therein it is mentioned that respondent Magan caused instant accident while riding TVS motorcycle MP-45-BA-6585 rashly and negligently. There is nothing on record to show that owner and driver of offending motorcycle has complained anywhere that respondent Magan/offending motorcycle have been falsely implicated in the accident. Perusal of record of Tribunal reveal that owner and driver of offending motorcycle has remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 17. It is correct that PW-1 (claimant) has deposed in Para 9 of his cross examination as under: eSaus nq?kVZuk dh fjiksVZ ugha djh FkhA nq?kVZuk dh fjiksVZ x.kir us dh FkhA tc nq?kVZuk gqbZ ml fnu eksVjlk;dy okyk ugha idM+k;k Fkk vkSj u gh eksVjlk;dy idM+kbZ FkhA fQj ckn esa geus ckrphr djus ds ckn exu dh eksVjlk;dy ls ,DlhMsUV gksuk fy[kk;k FkkA eq>s ugha ekywe dh fdldh eksVjlk;dy ls Vddj gqbZ FkhA 18. With respect to above testimony of PW-1 Raksingh, it is important to keep in mind that if Ex.P-1's FIR has been lodged after deliberation and as an after thought to falsely involve offending motorcycle just to claim compensation, then, Ex.P-1 should contain number of offending motorcycle as well as name of driver, but therein no such details are mentioned. Therefore, just on the basis of above deposition of PW-1 Raksingh, it cannot be said that offending vehicle has been falsely involved. So far as paras 5 and 6 of deposition of PW-2 Jhetu are concerned, perusal of Paras 8 to 24 of impugned award reveal that learned Tribunal has dealt with and examined all the submissions which have been raised by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court because similar submissions were also raised before the Tribunal. This court is in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the aforesaid paras. 19. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras, it cannot be said that offending vehicle has been falsely involved in the instant accident just to claim compensation. Compensation: 20. This court is in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the aforesaid paras. 19. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras, it cannot be said that offending vehicle has been falsely involved in the instant accident just to claim compensation. Compensation: 20. So far as compensation is concerned, the present case relates to accident dated 20.01.2007 and the learned Tribunal in Para 28 of impugned award has held deceased to be under 15 years at the time of accident and he was the student of fourth class. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,57,500/-. 21. So far as multiplier is concerned, as per Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), Manju Devi vs. Musafir Paswan, 2005 ACJ 99 (SC), Kurban Ansari @ Kurban Ali vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 , multiplier of 15 is to be applied. 22. So far as the notional income is concerned, at the time of accident, the deceased was below fifteen years of age. In Kishan Gopal vs. Lala, 2013 ACJ (SC), the age of deceased was ten years. In Kishan Gopal (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has assessed the notional income of deceased Rs. 30,000/- per month and adopted the multiplier of 15 and allowed Rs. 4,50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- under conventional heads, total compensation is Rs. 5,00,000/-. 23. Hence, in view of the age of deceased, principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) is clearly applicable to the facts of instant case. Hence, in the instant case also, considering the notional income of deceased as Rs. 30,000/- per annum and by applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,50,000/-. In above amount, Rs. 50,000/- is also added under conventional head. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 5,00,000/-. Hence, in the instant case, in this Court's considered opinion, the respondents/claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. 24. In view of discussion in the foregoing paras, appeal filed by Insurance Company is dismissed whereas cross objections filed by respondents/claimants are allowed in part and to the extent indicated here-in-above. The enhanced amount i.e. Rs. 3,42,500.00 (Rs. 5,00,000/-. Hence, in the instant case, in this Court's considered opinion, the respondents/claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. 24. In view of discussion in the foregoing paras, appeal filed by Insurance Company is dismissed whereas cross objections filed by respondents/claimants are allowed in part and to the extent indicated here-in-above. The enhanced amount i.e. Rs. 3,42,500.00 (Rs. 5,00,000.00 - 1,57,500.00) shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till its realization and other findings of Tribunal shall remain intact. 25. Resultantly, appeal filed by appellant/Insurance Company is dismissed and cross-objections filed by respondents/claimants are allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. The appeal/cross-objections are disposed of accordingly. 26. Certified copy, as per Rules.