JUDGMENT : The appeal in M.F.A.No.5280/2016 is filed by the owner of the passenger auto challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.295/2014 dated 14.03.2016 fastening the liability on him, who has been arrayed as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. The cross-objection in M.F.A. Crob. No.153/2022 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 02.03.2014 at about 1.00 to 4.00 p.m., when the deceased P. Malleshappa was traveling in a passenger auto bearing No.KA-34/A-7976 from Kogali to Kottur of Itagi-Kottur Road, when the auto reached near Sangameshwara Cross at Bankar Nagappa’s land at about 4.30 p.m., the driver of the said auto rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, the driver lost control over the auto and turtled on the right side. As a result, deceased P. Malleshappa sustained injuries to his head and died at the spot. 3. It is the claim of the claimants that the deceased was hale and healthy doing agricultural work and also milk vending business and getting income of Rs.15,000/-per month. Due to untimely death of deceased, the petitioner No.1 lost her companion and affection of husband in her young age and petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who are the minor children of the deceased have lost love and affection of their father. The petitioner No.5 being the mother has lost her son. Hence, they claimed the compensation before the Tribunal. 4. In response to the notice, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their advocate and filed their objection statement. In the objection filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, they have disputed the entire case of the petitioners and contended that the driver of the vehicle possessed valid and effective driving license to drive such a class of vehicle and vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle has not violated any terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation. 5. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company has filed the objection statement disputing the entire claim of the claimants and contended that the driver was not having valid and effective driving license and knowing fully well that the driver had no valid driving license, handed over the vehicle and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. 5. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company has filed the objection statement disputing the entire claim of the claimants and contended that the driver was not having valid and effective driving license and knowing fully well that the driver had no valid driving license, handed over the vehicle and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also contended that, there was no permit as on the date of the accident and vehicle was plied outside the permitted area and carried excess passengers exceeding the seating capacity and the vehicle had permit only to ply as per the permit issued by the concerned office. But, the vehicle was plied in Sangameshwara Cross i.e., Ittigi-Kottur main road near Banakar Nagappa’s land out of the permitted area on the date of the accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 6. The Tribunal, considering the material available on record, framed the issues and the petitioners, in support of their case, examined the petitioner Nos.1 and 4 as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P4. The respondent Nos.2 and 1 examined themselves as R.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. The respondent No.3 examined its Administrative Officer as R.W.3 and examined the R.T.O. as R.W.4 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R9. 7. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.10,29,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and fastened the liability on the driver and owner, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the owner has filed the appeal in M.F.A.No.5280/2016. 8. It is the contention of the appellant-owner in the appeal that the Tribunal failed to see that after having found that respondent No.3 has failed to prove that the driver was holding a valid driving license, ought not to have fastened the liability on him and ought to have fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. It is contended that the document which has been produced by the respondent No.7, no way discloses that vehicle was plied outside the permissible limits and no any fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also contended that, insofar as it relates to the issue of payment of compensation to the third parties, the defence raised by respondent No.7 is not at all permissible in law. It is also contended that, insofar as it relates to the issue of payment of compensation to the third parties, the defence raised by respondent No.7 is not at all permissible in law. It is contended that, once the policy is issued, issuance of permit to ply the vehicle is only an ancillary issue and cannot be termed in any other manner, so as to avoid the liability. The counsel also would vehemently contend that, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that accident has taken place on 02.03.2014 and policy came to be issued on 26.11.2013 valid till 26.11.2014 and the policy was renewed from 02.12.2014 till 01.12.2015 goes to show that the policy came to be issued by the respondent-Insurance Company without verifying whether permit has been obtained by the appellant. Hence, this itself goes to show that the Insurance Company never intended to avoid the liability on the question of permit to ply the vehicle in a specific route and the counsel would contend that there was no deviation at all. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/-per month is on the higher side and the claimants have also not proved the income by leading cogent evidence. Hence, it requires interference. 9. The claimants have also filed the cross-objection in M.F.A. Crob. No.153/2022, wherein they contend that the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency is on the lower side and the same is liable to be enhanced. It is also contended that the compensation awarded towards loss of estate loss of love and affection/consortium is on the lower side and the same are liable to be enhanced. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that want of permit of the offending vehicle is not a fundamental breach and the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the Insurance Company and alternatively, since the petitioners are third parties and the Insurance Company is bound to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner. Hence, prayed this Court to enhance the compensation. 10. The counsel also in his argument would contend that, future prospects was also not considered while awarding the compensation. Hence, prayed this Court to enhance the compensation. 10. The counsel also in his argument would contend that, future prospects was also not considered while awarding the compensation. The counsel also would submit that the accident has occurred in 2014 and income was taken only at Rs.6,000/- per month and ought to have taken the notional income at Rs.8,500/- per month. The counsel would further contend that, at the rate of Rs.44,000/-, the wife, mother and children are entitled for compensation on the head of loss of love and affection and consortium. Hence, it requires interference. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company in his argument vehemently contend that, there was no permit and when there was no permit, owner is liable to pay the compensation. Though, it is contended that there was no deviation, in order to prove the fact that no permit at all, got examined the R.T.O. as R.W.4 and got marked the document at Ex.R7. Hence, it is clear that there was no permit as on the date of the accident. The counsel also would submit that this appeal was filed in 2014 and cross-objection was filed in 2022. It is not in dispute that the claimants are also represented through their counsel in M.F.A.No.5280/2016 and hence, the cross-objection ought to have been filed within 30 days but, the same is filed after five years. Hence, the cross-objection cannot be entertained and the same is hopelessly barred by limitation. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal. 12. In reply to the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company, the learned counsel appearing for the cross-objectors in M.F.A. Crob. No.153/2022 would contend that, this Court in the appeal in M.F.A.No.4945/2014 dated 01.09.2022 in an appeal filed by the owner, fastened the liability on the Insurance Company to pay and recover. Here is a case of third parties and the Tribunal ordered to pay and recover the amount from the owner-insured and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner and when the claimants are third parties, this Court has to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner. 13. 13. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the driver and owner, instead of fastening the liability on the Insurance Company, as contended in the appeal in M.F.A.No.5280/2016? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation as claimed in the cross-objection in M.F.A. Crob. No. 153/2022? (iii) What order? Point No.(i) 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, this Court has to analyze the material available on record, whether the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the driver and owner, instead of fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Having perused the material on record, though the learned counsel for the appellant in his argument vehemently contend that liability is erroneously fastened on the driver and owner, but, it is not the contention of the appellant that there was a permit as on the date of the accident. 15. The Insurance Company examined the R.T.O. as R.W.4 to prove that there was no permit as on the date of the accident. The R.T.O., who has been examined before the Court has stated that passenger auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-34/A-7976 was not having permit to ply the vehicle and even, no application is filed to obtain the permit. In the cross-examination of the witness also, nothing is elicited. The Insurance Company also examined its Administrative Officer as R.W.3 and he also reiterated that, no permit. I have already pointed out that, it is not the case of the appellant that there was a permit. When, there was no permit, it amounts to an infraction. 16. The Apex Court, in the judgment in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. CHALLA BHARATHAMMA AND OTHERS reported in (2005) 123 SC 327 held that, defences available to the Insurance Company that auto rickshaw plied without permit, the Insurance Company entitled to take defence based on infraction of conditions of policy by owner and company is not liable but, ordered to pay the compensation in first instance and later recover the same from the owner, relying upon Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Apex Court also held that, statutory defences which are available to the insurer to contest a claim for compensation for death or injury arising out of a motor accident are confined to those provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also held that, High Court was not justified in holding the insurer is liable and comes to the conclusion that, considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it had no liability, and to recover the amount from the insured. 17. The Apex Court also, in a similar set of facts, in the judgment in AMRIT PAUL SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 3 SCC (CRI) 255 held that, offending truck on date of accident not having the permit as required under Section 66(1) of Motor Vehicles Act and held that the said proviso which prescribes that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed Authority and held that, use of a vehicle as a transport vehicle in public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. It is also observed that, in the present case, no material brought on record by owner of offending vehicle (i.e., insured) to prove that he was having a permit of offending vehicle on date of accident and held that insurer is not liable in such a case. However, order passed by Courts below in such a situation directing insurer to pay compensation amount to claimants with interest with the stipulation that insurer must be entitled to recover the same from owner and driver of vehicle, held, was proper, being in consonance with principle of pay and recover. 18. Having taken note of the principles laid down in the judgments referred (supra), it is clear that the Insurance Company cannot be made as liable to pay the compensation as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. 19. 18. Having taken note of the principles laid down in the judgments referred (supra), it is clear that the Insurance Company cannot be made as liable to pay the compensation as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in M.F.A.NO.4945/2014 dated 01.09.2022, wherein, this Court comes to the conclusion that, when the claimants are third parties, even in the appeal filed by the insured, the Court can direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would submit that, when the appellant himself has approached this Court by filing an appeal, the question of directing the Insurance Company to pay and recover does not arise, when the Court comes to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 20. Having perused the proviso of Section 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the words used is that, the Insurance Company shall, upon receiving information of the accident, either from claimant or through accident information report or otherwise, designate an officer to settle the claims relating to such accident. The Apex Court also, in both the judgments referred (supra), invoking Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 comes to the conclusion that Insurance Company can raise the defence and directed to pay and recover the amount from the insured and the object of the Act is also to satisfy the amount, keeping in view the interest of the third parties, who are not responsible for the accident and recover the same. Hence, I answer point No.(i) as ‘negative’, however, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the insured as held by the Apex Court. Point No.(ii) 21. No doubt, this matter was heard in part, later the claimants have approached this Court by filing a cross-objection in 2022, though the appeal is of the year 2016. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that, cross-objection ought to have been filed within one month from the date of service of notice and admittedly, the same is not filed within one month. It is not in dispute that the claimants have also engaged the counsel and contested the matter. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that, cross-objection ought to have been filed within one month from the date of service of notice and admittedly, the same is not filed within one month. It is not in dispute that the claimants have also engaged the counsel and contested the matter. But, it is settled law that, even in the absences of an appeal by the claimants, the Court can award just and reasonable compensation invoking Order 41, Rule 33 of C.P.C. However, the claimants have filed cross-objection belatedly. Though the statute provides that, cross-objection should be filed within one month, the enactment of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a social legislation and the same is for the benefit of the victims. Under such circumstances, the contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. This Court also, by invoking Order 41, Rule 33 of C.P.C., even in the absence of an appeal, can award just and reasonable compensation. 22. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that the claimants are wife, children and mother of the deceased, who are five in numbers. The Tribunal, while assessing the compensation, taken the income of Rs.6,000/-per month and accident has occurred in 2014 and the notional income would be Rs.8,500/-per month. It has to be noted that, no future prospects has been added while awarding the compensation, no doubt, the Tribunal awarded compensation considering the relevant multiplier of ‘16’, since the deceased was aged about 35 years and when the future prospects has not been considered and income taken was also on the lower side, this Court can entertain the cross-objection filed by the claimants, even though the same is filed belatedly and award just and reasonable compensation or otherwise, it would cause injustice to the claimants. 23. Having taken note of the notional income of Rs.8,500/-per month and adding future prospects at 40%, the income comes to Rs.11,900/-(8,500+3,400) per month. Since, the claimants are wife, children and mother, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses. After deducting 1/4th, the income works out to Rs.8,925/-(11,900 – 2,975). Hence, taking the income of Rs.8,925/-and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘16’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.17,13,600/-(8,925 x 12 x 16). 24. Since, the claimants are wife, children and mother, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses. After deducting 1/4th, the income works out to Rs.8,925/-(11,900 – 2,975). Hence, taking the income of Rs.8,925/-and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘16’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.17,13,600/-(8,925 x 12 x 16). 24. Apart from that, the claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/-each towards loss of consortium and love and affection which comes to Rs.2,00,000/-(40,000 x 5). 25. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.33,000/-towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Hence, in all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.19,46,600/-as against Rs.10,29,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.(iii) 26. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the insured and cross-objection filed by the cross-objectors are allowed in part. The judgment and award of the Tribunal passed in M.V.C. No.295/2014 dated 14.03.2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & MACT-IX, Harapanahalli, is modified granting compensation of Rs.19,46,600/-as against Rs.10,29,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. (iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization within six weeks from today and thereafter, recover the same from the insured-owner. (iv) The amount deposited by the insured-owner shall be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith. (v) The registry is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal, forthwith.