JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Since very simple facts and law are involved in these appeals, hence, these appeals are taken up at the admission stage itself and since the Cross Objection has arisen out of this Miscellaneous Appeal, thus both the Miscellaneous Appeal as well as the Cross Objection are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 19.02.2020 passed by Learned M.A.C.T.-Cum-District Judge-I, Dumka, passed in Motor Accident Claims Case No.12 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.11,78,000/- to the claimants to be paid by the appellant- Insurance Company. 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 21.08.2017, the deceased- Ram Mandal along with others were travelling in a pick-up van with bamboo of the tent house on behalf of and in capacity of labourers of Sharma Tent House. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending pick-up van; it collided head on with a tractor coming from opposite direction resulting in serious injuries to the deceased- Ram Mandal. The deceased- Ram Mandal was initially taken to Primary Health Centre and from there; he was referred to Dumka Sadar Hospital. 5. In connection with the said accident, Hansdiha P.S. Case No.72 of 2017 was registered. During the course of his treatment of the injuries sustained in the said motor vehicle accident, Ram Mandal was referred to Durgapur for better treatment and during his treatment he succumbed to the injuries on 29.08.2017. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending pick-up van who is the opposite party No.3 of the claim application for the having committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It is stated that the deceased was tent decorator (Mistri) and his daily income was Rs.400/- and the deceased was stated to be of 42 years of age at the time of his death. 7. In its written statement, the opposite party No.1- appellant Insurance Company challenged the maintainability of the claim application on various technical grounds. 6. It is stated that the deceased was tent decorator (Mistri) and his daily income was Rs.400/- and the deceased was stated to be of 42 years of age at the time of his death. 7. In its written statement, the opposite party No.1- appellant Insurance Company challenged the maintainability of the claim application on various technical grounds. The Insurance Company also pleaded that as per the F.I.R., in the said pick-up van several passengers were travelling as gratuitous passenger and as the said pick-up van was insured as a transport vehicle, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to cover the risk of any gratuitous passenger or labourer or owner of the said offending pick-up van as the said pick-up van has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 being the owner and driver respectively of the offending pick-up van also opposed the claim application but the opposite party No.2 admitted that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and his vehicle was insured with the opposite party No.1- appellant- Insurance Company. The opposite party No.1 also pleaded that the deceased was getting Rs.400/- for every working day. 9. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal framed the following seven issues:- (i). Whether the motor accident claim case is maintainable or not and whether the claimants have got a valid cause of action? (ii). Has the deceased Ram Ghosh @ Ram Mandal S/O Late Bilash Ghosh succumbed to the injuries caused in accident of motor vehicle Pickup bearing registration No. JH04K 5420? (iii). Whether the claimants are the legal heir and representative of the deceased Ram Ghosh @ Ram Mandal and whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation as has been claimed? (iv). Whether the motor vehicle Bolero Pickup bearing Registration No. JH04K 5420 was insured with Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Dumka? (v). Whether the driver had a valid and effective driving license on the date of the said accident? (vi). What was the age and monthly income of the deceased on the date of his accidental death? (vii). What should be the just amount of compensation and who has to be held responsible to make payment of the same? 10. (v). Whether the driver had a valid and effective driving license on the date of the said accident? (vi). What was the age and monthly income of the deceased on the date of his accidental death? (vii). What should be the just amount of compensation and who has to be held responsible to make payment of the same? 10. In support of their case, the claimants examined three witnesses and also proved the documents which have been marked Ext.1 to 9. The tribunal first took up issue No.(i) to (v) together. Out of the three witnesses examined by the claimants, C.W.1- Ranjit Pal is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He has stated that the deceased used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was not the eye-witness to the occurrence. C.W.2- Dukhani Ghosh is the claimant No.1 and the wife of the deceased. She has also stated about the deceased having the monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. She further stated that the deceased was aged about 42 years. In her cross-examination, she has stated that Kumarish Mandal informed her about the accident. C.W.3- Kumarish Mandal is the eye-witness to the accident. He has stated about the accident having taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending pick-up van. He has further stated that the deceased was aged about 42 years and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he lodged the F.I.R. in connection with the said accident but he was not an eye-witness to the accident. On the basis of the F.I.R., Charge-sheet of the connected criminal case and cognizance order as well as the oral testimony, the tribunal came to the conclusion that because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending pick-up van, the accident took place as a consequence of which the deceased- Ram Ghosh sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of his treatment and the claimants are dependants of the deceased. 11. 11. Thereafter, the tribunal took up issue Nos.(vi) and (vii) together and by observing that no documentary proof of the monthly income of the deceased was filed and the opposite party No.2-owner of the vehicle who was also the employer of the deceased has stated that the deceased used to get Rs.300/- for every working day from his tent house but he neither come to court to testify nor filed any document and on the basis of the profession of the deceased that he was a daily wager and unorganized labour and the rate of wages fixed by the Government of Jharkhand for such labourers, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- and assessed his age to be 42 years and applied the multiplier of 14. The tribunal also added 25% towards future prospects and thus calculated the compensation amount of Rs.10,08,000/- after deducting one-fifth of the compensation amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased and added Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head and added Rs.1,00,000/- more towards the treatment of the deceased in a private hospital and arrived at the total compensation of Rs.11,78,000/-. 12. Mr. Ashutosh Anand- learned counsel for the appellant in M.A. No.283 of 2020 submits that the learned tribunal failed to consider that the offending vehicle was not having any permit. Hence, the same amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is next submitted by Mr. Anand that even otherwise also, since the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the goods carriage vehicle, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle regarding the compensation amount to be paid in this case. It is next submitted that since it is the admitted case of head on collision with the tractor and the offending pick-up van, hence, the tribunal ought to have held that there was a contributory negligence of the tractor also and would have given the right to the Insurance Company to recover the adequate amount of compensation to be paid by it to the claimants from the owner and/insurer of the offending tractor. It is also submitted that the deceased was also involved in contributory negligence as passenger is not permitted to travel in a goods carriage vehicle. It is also submitted that the deceased was also involved in contributory negligence as passenger is not permitted to travel in a goods carriage vehicle. It is next submitted that keeping in view of the fact that the employer of the deceased has categorically stated that the deceased was paid Rs.300/- per day for each working day and as there is absolutely no evidence in the record as to how many working days in a month a labourer with a decorator has; the assessment of monthly income of Rs.6,000/- is on the higher side. In support of his contention, Mr. Anand relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chameli Devi vs. Jivrail Mian in Civil Appeal No.7004/2019 reported in (2019) 4 TAC 724 (SC) dated 04.09.2019 wherein in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India assessed the income of a carpenter of Rs.5,000/- per month but Mr. Ashutosh Anand submits that the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- is on the higher side. 13. It is next submitted by Mr. Anand that it is a settled principle of law that the medical expenses incurred in treatment of a victim of a motor vehicle accident is to be awarded on the basis of connected documents and though the claimants have not filed any chit of paper regarding the treatment of the deceased, the tribunal erred by awarding Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses to the claimants. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award be modified by reducing the amount of compensation and absolving the Insurance Company from paying the compensation amount. 14. Mr. Rishav Kumar- learned counsel for the Cross Objectors in C.O. No.45 of 2021 relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Another vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Others reported in (2022) 1 SCC 198 wherein the facts of that case where the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving license and it was the specific case of the claimants that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts of that case has held that there is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Mr. Mr. Rishav Kumar next relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gurpreet Kaur & Others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 wherein in the facts of that case where there was no evidence in record regarding the income of the deceased and the Assistant Manager of the Bank deposed in that case that the deceased was regularly making payment of Rs.11,550/- as installment to discharge his loan liability towards his tractor and was managing a family comprising of his wife, two minor children and parents and affording a tractor and a motorcycle and was working as a contractor where the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.25,000/- per month, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the tribunal’s approach is quite justified in law as well as on facts. 15. Mr. Rishav Kumar next submits that in this case the tribunal has grossly underestimated the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, it is submitted that the monthly income of the deceased be enhanced and the monthly income of the deceased be assessed on the higher side and accordingly the quantum of compensation be increased. 16. Mr. Ashutosh Anand vehemently objects to the maintainability of the Cross Objection as though the notice was served upon the respondents/claimants/ Cross Objectors on 07.10.2021 but the Cross Objection was filed on 02.12.2021 that is more than one month from the date of service of the notice of the appeal and no extension of time has been granted by this Court for filing the Cross Objection. Hence, it is submitted by Mr Ashutosh Anand that the Cross Objection is barred by limitation. 17. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah- learned counsel for the respondent No.8- owner of the vehicle submits that so far as the contention of the appellant that the offending vehicle in question was not having any permit, hence, it has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy is not tenable because of the reason that as per the Insurance Policy Schedule-cum-Certificate of Insurance which has been marked Ext.-7 shows that the policy type was Package- Goods Carrying Vehicle and Gross Vehicle Weight was 2960 Kg and as per Section 66 (3) (i) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, such vehicles do not require any permit. Hence, when such vehicle does not require any permit; the absence of permit cannot be a ground to contend that there is any violation of terms and conditions of the policy. So far as the claim of the Insurance Company that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah that as per Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurance policy covers the owner of the goods carried in the goods carriage vehicle or his authorized representatives and in this case as deposed in paragraph-7 of his written statement, the owner of the vehicle has categorically stated that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as the authorized representative of the owner of the goods carried in the said vehicle at the time of accident and the same is also supported by the deposition of the C.W.2-Dukhani Ghosh and such portion of the testimony of the C.W.2 has not been challenged in her deposition. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Sah that the tribunal has not committed any illegality by saddling the appellant- Insurance Company with the liability to pay the compensation amount. 18. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, the following two points crop up for determination in this appeal:- (i) Whether the Insurance Company be absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount? (ii) Whether the Cross Objection is barred by limitation? 19. So far as the first point for determination is concerned, the policy of insurance which has been marked as Ext.7, has categorically shown that the gross weight of the vehicle is 2960 Kg and in view of this undisputed fact read with Section 66 (3) (i) of the M.V. Act, 1988, which exempts permit for vehicles of laden weight of 3000 kilograms, this Court is of the considered view that the offending vehicle does not require any permit for its plying on the road, and in the absence of any requirement of any permit for its plying on road, it cannot be said that offending vehicle has violated any of the terms and conditions of the policy. 20. 20. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding the deceased having travelling as gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, is concerned, in paragraph-7 of the written statement of the owner of the vehicle, it has categorically been mentioned that the deceased was travelling in the goods carriage vehicle as the authorized representative of the owners of the goods which were carried by the said offending vehicle and the C.W.2 has also categorically deposed about the same in her deposition and the said portion of the testimony of the C.W.2 has remained unchallenged, hence, the same is to be accepted. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the tribunal has not committed any error by saddling the Insurance Company with the liability to pay the compensation amount. 21. So far as the quantum of compensation which was stated to be on the higher side, by the appellant is concerned, true it is that there is absolutely no evidence in the record regarding the educational qualification of the deceased or his financial status as to whether he was owning any vehicle or having any bank account or for that matter any other evidence regarding his financial status. But the employer of the deceased has categorically stated that the deceased was getting Rs.300/- for each working day; of course there is no evidence as to how many working days a labourer was ordinarily engaged by a decorator in a month. Under such circumstances, the assessment of the income of the deceased cannot be stated to be on the higher side. 22. Under such circumstances, the assessment of the income of the deceased cannot be stated to be on the higher side. 22. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding awarding of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses is concerned, true it is that no documentary evidence has been adduced by the claimants regarding the medical expenses incurred in the treatment of the deceased but the fact remains that the deceased was treated for about eight days before his death as an indoor patient and he was treated first at Primary Heath Centre thereafter at the Sadar Hospital and thereafter at a Specialized Treatment Centre at Durgapur and this fact remains undisputed and the testimony of the witnesses of the claimants in this respect has not been challenged in their respective cross-examination, hence, this portion of the testimony of the witnesses is to be believed and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was treated at three places including a specialized hospital at Durgapur for about eight days, the medical expenses awarded by the tribunal, on the basis of assumption appears to be proper. Hence, the first point for determination is answered in the negative. 23. So far as the second point for determination is concerned, undisputedly the respondents have received the notice on 07.10.2021 and the Cross Objection was filed on 02.12.2021 that is more than one month after the date of receipt of notice and neither extension of time has been sought nor has the same been allowed by this Court. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Cross Objection is barred by limitation. The second point for determination is answered in the affirmative. 24. In view of the discussions made above, this appeal, being without any merit and the Cross Objection, being barred by limitation, are dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 25. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to remit the statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant to the tribunal concerned forthwith. 26. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent to the tribunal concerned forthwith.