Cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC are maintainable for respondents seeking to modify a decree. In motor accident compensation, income must include gross salary and allowances, and the multiplier must be strictly determined by the age of the deceased.

ORDER :

HIRDESH, J.

This misc. appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by appellants- claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambah, District Moren (in ''the Claims Tribunal''), in Claim Case No.108 of 2008.

2. The Claims Tribunal, by its award dated 12th March 2010, granted a total compensation of Rs.12,58,797/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the award. The appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded and, therefore, have preferred this appeal, praying for its enhancement.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that deceased, Jaiveer Singh, was a constable in Madhya Pradesh Police Department. The Claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, inter alia, stating that the deceased was a responsible and hardworking individual, known for his dedication to both his duties and his family. The deceased was the sole breadwinner for his family, and his untimely death resulted in severe financial hardship for the appellants, who are his legal heirs. The appellants are wife; son, parents and stepmother of deceased. At the time of his death, deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs.14,000/- which he used to support his family. It was averred that on 4th February 2008, the deceased, along with his colleague Vaijnath Singh Jatav, was traveling on a motorcycle to execute court warrants as part of his official duties. While traveling on the AB Road, near Nayagaon Gate, Subhashpura Police Station, deceased’s motorcycle was struck from behind by a tanker bearing registration number MH 04AL2588 (in short '' the offending vehicle). The tanker was being driven recklessly and at high speed by respondent No.2- Vikram Singh, employed by respondent No.1- Ramjan Khan (the owner of offending vehicle). As a result of the collision, both the deceased and his colleague Vaijnath Singh Jatav died instantaneously. The appellants, being the legal heirs of deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the loss of life of the deceased. They filed the claim against driver, owner, and insurer of tanker. In the claim petition, they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.48,47,000/- for the loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, and other heads of damages.

4. After conducting proceedings, framing issues, and considering the oral and documentary evidence presented by parties, the Claims Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs. 12,58,797/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of impugned award.

5. The appellants have now approached this Court seeking an enhancement in compensation amount.

6. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, it is contended on behalf by learned Counsel for appellants that the income of the deceased was not properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal relied on a lower monthly income of deceased at Rs.10,280/- instead of Rs.14,000/- which was actual salary of deceased. Monthly income of Rs.14,000/- should have been considered for calculating the compensation. The Claims Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of deceased. Since the deceased was a Government employee, he was likely to receive promotions and increments in salary as per the Sixth Pay Commission. The Claims Tribunal should have awarded compensation for the loss of future prospects, and a sum of Rs.5 lac should have been added to the compensation. The Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.60,000/- for the loss of companionship, love, and affection is grossly inadequate. It is further contended that a minimum of Rs. 1 lac should have been granted under this head. Hence, the compensation amount be enhanced.

7.On the other hand, the learned counsel for Insurance Company has supported the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal and submitted that the compensation awarded was just and appropriate, consi