The main legal point established in the judgment is the calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly regarding the assessment of permanent disability and loss of income, as well as the liability of the insurance company in cases where the appellant is deemed to be the owner of the vehicle.

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against an award dated 31.1.2008 passed by learned Addl. Member, M.A.C.T. (Fast Track), Kukshi, District Dhar, in Claim Case No. 61 of 2007.

2. The appellant on 22.10.2005 was driving Maruti car MP 09-HD 2436 which was owned by Prashant, respondent No. 2. The accident had taken place since the steering of the vehicle had failed. In the accident, the appellant suffered injuries, therefore, he had filed the claim petition before Tribunal. The Tribunal found that in the accident, the appellant had received 21.4 per cent permanent disability in the left hand and 13 per cent in the right hand. The Tribunal thus found that the appellant had suffered 34.4 per cent disability in the particular limb of the body and in reference to the whole body, the Tribunal calculated the permanent disability to the extent of 12 per cent. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 2,500 and the age at the time of accident as 32 years and applied the multiplier of 17, thus the Claims Tribunal calculated the loss of income on account of permanent disability as Rs. 61,200. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 29,948 on account of the actual medical expenses, Rs. 1,800 on account of attendant charges, Rs. 7,500 on account of loss of income during the treatment period, Rs. 3,000 for transportation charges, thus, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,03,448 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of application till realization.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the permanent disability in reference to the whole body and has committed further error in assessing the income of the appellant and in awarding lower compensation amount. Counsel for appellant had objected to the cross-objection filed by the respondent insurance company on the ground that the cross-objection is time-barred and on merit it is not sustainable.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company submitted that the amount which has been calculated by the Tribunal is just and proper. Pressing the cross-objection filed by the insurance company he submitted that the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award since the appellant was driving the vehicle borrowed from the owner, therefore, he was not a third party but was in the capacity of the owner of the vehicle.

5. So far as the cross-objection filed by the insurance company is concerned, it is pointed out by the counsel for appellant that notice of this appeal was issued on 8.9.2008 and it was served upon the insurance company on 25.11.2008 and the power of attorney was filed by the counsel for insurance company on 5.12.2008 but the cross-objection was filed after almost two years on 8.10.2010. These dates are not disputed. Therefore, in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this court in the matter of Ranjeet Singh v. Bhagwan Singh, 2007 ACJ 1629 (MP), the cross-objection filed after a lapse of almost two years from the date of service of notice in the appeal was barred by time and there was no application for condonation of delay in filing the cross-objection, therefore, it cannot be entertained.

6. Even otherwise, the insurance company has filed the cross-objection raising the ground that the appellant was driving the borrowed vehicle, therefore, he had stepped into the shoes of the owner and was not a third party and in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi, 2008 ACJ 1441 (SC); in the matter of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2020 (SC); and in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi, 2009 ACJ 998 (SC), the insurance company is not liable. Such an argument of the insurance company cannot be accepted since no such issue was raised by the insurance company before