V.K. GUPTA, C.J.

(1.) This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.3.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Solan District at Solan in M.A.C. Petition No. 15-NS/2 of 1993. Even though this appeal has been filed at the instance of two appellants, namely, Shirish Batra, minor through his father Sharat Batra and Sharat Batra himself, Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted and stated before me that the appeal insofar as it relates to the appellant No. 2 Sharat Batra may be treated as not pressed and rightly so because admittedly, in view of the explicit legal position as contained in section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claim petition before the Tribunal is maintainable only by or at the instance of the person injured in the accident and not by a third party. Through the medium of this appeal, appellant Shirish Batra seeks the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the judgment under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant Shirish Batra was injured in a motor accident on 16.5.1993 at Chail, Tehsil Kandaghat in Solan District while, being a student of 8th class of Manav Bharti India International School, Panchsheel Park (South), New Delhi, he along with his classmates, other students of the school and teachers had gone to Chail on a visit. At about 1.15 p.m. on 16.5.1993 while Shirish Batra, appellant along with two other students was sitting on a parapet (on the roadside) near P.W.D. Rest House, Chail, bus bearing registration No. CH 01-9083 coming from Shimla side ran over all the three children, who suffered various grievous injuries. Since in this appeal, I am concerned only with Shirish Batra, appellant, it is to be noticed that he was immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Chail for treatment and from there, since his condition was critical he was referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla (I.G.M.C.) for further treatment but since even in I.G.M.C. the desired and required treatment could not be provided, he was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh where the doctors diagnosed that he had a head injury with fracture of frontal bone and fracture of ethmoid. The doctors also diagnosed that he had diffuse brain oedema. Even though the appellant was discharged from P.G.I., Chandigarh on 23.5.1993 and he went to his home at Delhi, on 26.5.1993 he started having watery discharge from the right nostril of his nose and became febrile. He was admitted in the Mool Chand Khareti Ram Hospital in New Delhi ('M.C.K.R. Hospital' for short) on 29.5.1993. The CT Scan done on 31.5.1993 showed multiple fracture of orbital roof frontal bone ethmoid. It also showed linear fracture of right parietal region and fracture on the base of skull, on its left side. From M.C.K.R. Hospital, he was discharged on 10.6.1993 but was again admitted on 5.7.1993 and discharged on 24.7.1993. At the time of the filing of the claim petition, appellant continued to be under treatment and it was averred that he was likely to continue under medical treatment for a long time. Following four issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal:

(1) Whether the accident in question has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2? OPP (2) Whether the minor petitioner No. 1 is entitled to compensation as alleged, if so, how much and from whom? OPP (3) Whether the driver of the said vehicle was not having any driving licence? OPR3 (4) Relief.

(3.) Since in this appeal, I am concerned only with the issue relating to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the issue No. 2 alone is relevant for consideration and examination in this appeal.

(4.) The Tribunal disposed of the claim petition by granting a total compensation of Rs. 1,75,000 in favour of the appellant, payable by respondent No. 3 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the amount was realised.

(5.) In arriving at the compensation amount of Rs. 1,75,000, Tribunal divided the compensation in the following five heads and against each of the five heads as shown hereinbelow, the compensation amount was worked out individually, making it a gross total of Rs. 1,75,000. The five heads, accordingly, along with the compensation shown against each head are indicated as under:

(6.) As is evidently clear, under the heading 'loss of enjoyment, amenities of life, comforts, pain and suffering and loss of studies' the Tribunal has computed the compensation amount at Rs. 30,000 only. It is worthy of consideration and examination, in the light of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal whether this amount of compensation is not ridiculously, very very ridiculously on the lower side and does it not require enhancement, to a very very large extent?

(7.) With a view to appreciate the true nature of the evidence adduced in support of the appellant's contention that he indeed had suffered injuries resulting in his permanent disability and in what manner did he suffer on account of these injuries and has it been established that these injuries have permanently incapacitated the appellant, the most important piece of evidence on the subject is the medical (expert) evidence relating to the aforesaid aspect. Let us have a close look what this evidence has to say about the injuries received by the appellant.

(8.) Dr. Ashok Bhatt was a Consultant Neurosurgeon at M.C.K.R. Hospital, New Delhi and it is this doctor who, along with his senior Dr. Jawahar Dar, another Neurosurgeon, had attended upon the appellant, treated him and performed surgery upon him. Let us have a look what he has to say in his deposition before the Tribunal. It shall be worthwhile to reproduce herein the entire testimony of Dr. Ashok Bhatt. It reads thus:

"PW 3. Dr. Ashok Bhatt, son of Kashi Nath, resident of D-33, Jangpura Extn., New Delhi, on SA. I am Consultant Neurosurgeon at Mool Chand Hospital, New Delhi, since January, 1993. Shirish Batra was admitted in my hospital as an indoor patient. Shirish Batra had suffered serious injuries in a roadside accident and was brought to our hospital for treatment. He was admitted in hospital on 29.5.1993 and remained under treatment in the hospital up to 10.6.1993. He was re-admitted on 5.7.1993 and was discharged on 24.7.1993. On the first admission in the hospital, the patient was having watery discharge from right nostril and having high grade fever. Patient was suffering from post-traumatic C.S.F. rhinorrhoea. Initially the patient was treated with antibiotics and cerebral decongestants, CT Scan of the head was conducted on 31.5.1993 which showed multiple fractures of roof of right orbit and right frontal bones both sides. Some pockets of air in basi frontal region were also found. There was a linear fracture also found in right parietal region and fracture in base of skull. Patient responded to the given conservative treatment. The nasal discharge had also stopped after the above treatment was given and the patient was discharged on 10.6.1993. Subsequently, the patient again reported with watery discharge from his nose and he was again admitted in the hospital on 5.7.1993. Repeat CT Scan of the head was done which showed total opacity of right ethmoid sinus. The patient had to be operated upon on 8.7.1993. On operation it was found that there was a large boney defect and a tear in the covering of brain and brain matter was protruding into the boney defect. During the operation, we had to cut the protruding part of the brain and grafting of coverings of brain was done and boney defect was closed partly. The aforesaid operation was conducted by Dr. Jawahar Dar, Senior Surgeon and by me as a team. After the said operation, the patient was discharged on 24.7.1993. The patient's nasal discharge had stopped and the body temperature had become normal. I have today seen the medical report of Shirish Batra which has been prepared and signed by Dr. Jawahar Dar, Neurological Surgeon, Mool Chand Hospital, New Delhi. Copy of the same is Exh. PW-3/A (original seen and returned). I have worked with Dr. Jawahar Dar since 1990, firstly, in Batra Hospital, New Delhi and thereafter, in Mool Chand Hospital, where I am working presently. I am conversant with the signatures of Dr. Jawahar Dar and the original of Exh. PW-3/A bears his signatures. The patient was also treated by Neuro Physician Dr. M.S. Gulati of our hospital. I have today seen the original discharge summary which is prepared and signed by Dr. M.S. Gulati, photocopy of the same is Exh. PW-3/B. I have also seen the original discharge summary prepared and signed by Dr. Dar, photocopy of which is Exh. PW-3/C. During the operation conducted on the patient, we had to make a window, i.e., an opening in the right frontal area of the skull which was partially closed subsequently. However, the patient will have to be very careful and cautious in future regarding this portion of his body and he has to avoid putting any stress or weight on this part of his body. In my opinion, the patient might require anti-convulsant drugs for his whole lifetime as he is still suffering from seizure disorder. Seizure disorder means that the patient is likely to get/suffer from epileptic fits time and again. At present the patient is having difficulties in higher mental functions like concentration and behaviour. The area in which the patient has suffered the injuries controls the higher mental functions and the same have been impaired in this case. In my opinion, the disability may be for lifelong. The treatment given to the patient is the best available in this area. If the injuries were not treated by us in the aforesaid manner, the patient could have suffered meningitis which could have been fatal. Cross by Mr. Rajbir Gill, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I cannot say whether the injuries suffered by the patient in this case can be caused by a simple fall from the height of 4-5 ft. over some stone or boulders. Cross by Mr. S.L. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Mool Chand Hospital is a private hospital. In our hospital O.P.D. facility is free and about 10 per cent of the patients who are from very poor strata of the society, are given free medical treatment. But free medical treatment is not available for emergency services. Medical reimbursement facility can be availed by the patient as Mool Chand Hospital is authorised hospital for many Corporations and Departments, etc. The medical reimbursement bills of the patients are always checked, verified and signed by the concerned doctors. I do not know as to whether Shirish Batra had claimed medical reimbursement or that he had submitted medical reimbursement claim form. The treatment given to the patient including the operation, etc., might have been available in P.G.I., Chandigarh. I cannot say whether the above treatment could be given in I.G.M.C., Shimla. I had medically examined the patient lastly on 13.10.1995 in the Hospital O.P.D. Shirish Batra can go in for graduation and postgraduation, but his mental concentration is greatly impaired and he cannot pursue his studies like a normal student. At this stage I cannot specifically say as to whether Shirish Batra can lead a proper married life physically. In my opinion Shirish Batra cannot appear for any Civil Services examination and work as an IAS officer. The above opinion has been formed by me keeping in view the present condition of the patient. Shirish Batra can have a normal span of life though it is too early to form a final opinion in the matter. Shirish Batra can read and write like a normal student. It is wrong to suggest that Shirish Batra has been completely cured after treatment and is suffering from no disability whatsoever. Questions by Commissioner. Q.1: Is Shirish Batra still under your treatment? A: Shirish Batra is still under my treatment. Q.2: How long will the treatment continue? A: The treatment is likely to continue for many years or may be even lifelong. Q.3: Can you assess the percentage of disability? A: In this case, the patient has got some permanent disability but the exact percentage cannot be calculated. Cross: Nil opportunity given to parties. R.O.andA.C. Sd/- Commissioner appointed by MACT-II, 11.11.1995. Sd/- Dr. Ashok Bhatt 11.11.1995."

(9.) Exh. PW-3/A is the medical report recorded by Dr. Jawahar Dar, Senior Neurosurgeon of M.C.K.R. Hospital, New Delhi and it is worthwhile to reproduce this report also in its entirety. It reads thus:

"Medical report-Shirish Batra Age: 13 years. Referred by Dr. M.S. Gulati, Neurologist, New Delhi. This young boy was knocked down by a vehicle while standing on the roadside on 16.5.1993 and he lost consciousness. He was taken to the P.G.I., Chandigarh on 17.5.1993. He was drowsy with no focal neurological deficit. There was history of bleeding from the ear and right nostril. X-ray skull showed fracture of the frontal and the ethmoid region on the right. CT Scan head showed diffuse brain oedema with fracture of the right frontal and ethmoid. He was treated conservatively and given Gentamycin and Kloxacillin. He was discharged from the P.G.I, on 23.5.1993. He was apparently well for 3 days when on 26.5.1993, he became febrile and started having watery discharge from the right nostril. He was admitted to the Mool Chand Hospital on 29.5.1993. On examination he was febrile with right C.S.F. rhinorrhoea and had neck rigidity. C.S.F. showed 5 WBC with Protein of 80 mg. and Sugar of 100 mg. Nasal fluid showed similar biochemistry with no cells, C.S.F. was sterile on culture. He was given Penicillin and Fortum. CT Scan of the head done on 31.5.1993 showed multiple fractures orbital roof and frontal bone on both sides, some pockets of air in the right basi frontal region. There was a linear fracture right parietal region and fracture in base of skull on left side. He responded to conservative treatment and C.S.F. rhinorrhoea stopped and he became afebrile. He was discharged on 10.6.1993 after being afebrile for a week. He apparently remained well till 3.7.1993 when he had discharge from the right nostril and became febrile. He was admitted to the Mool Chand Hospital on 5.7.1993, Reg. No. 6441. On admission except for Kernig's which was positive there was no neurological deficit. C.S.F. done twice on 5/7 and 7/7 yielded 5 WBC, Protein of 35 mg. and Sugar of 60 mg. Gram staining was -ve and cultures were sterile. A Motra- zamide cisternography and CT Scan was done. No C.S.F. leak or track was seen, but the right ethmoid was totally opaque. He was given cover of antibiotics and taken up for surgery on 8.7.1993. Operation B: Surgeon-Dr. Jawahar Dar, Assistant Dr. A.K. Bhatt. Anaesthetist-Dr. Rastogi/Dr. Rashmi. Scrub Nurse-S/Sheena. In a supine position through a bifrontal hair line skin incision a low right frontal osteo- plastic bone flap raised. There was a fracture running in the frontal bone onto the orbital roof with fracture running along with orbital roof also. There was a large dural tear underneath the fracture line extending about 7 centimetres from the base. Extradural dissection done and dura lifted from the base to expose a very wide dural defect extending over the entire base on the right side. There was a large fracture involving the cribriform plate and extending into the ethmoid. A part of the basi frontal lobe had herniated through the large dural defect into the ethmoid region. The herniated brain tissue was excised and dural graft used to close the dural defect. Bone defect and the ethmoid was packed with muscle and gelfoam and sealed with bone wax. Dura was then opened and the brain tissue separated from the dural edges and the dural defect extending from the frontal region to the base repaired and reinforced. Dura was closed tightly. Bone flap replaced back and skin closed in layers. Post-operative course was uneventful. He was kept in head down position and C.S.F. drained a couple of times. C.S.F. remained normal. He was apyrexic and had no C.S.F. leak. On 22.7.1993 he had a drop of C.S.F. but since has had none. He was discharged on 24.7.1993. Advised-gradual mobilisation. Ceftum 500 mg. bd Diamox 1 bd Epsolin 100 mg. tds. To see me after two weeks. Sd/- (Dr. Jawahar Dar)"

(10.) In the light of the aforesaid evidence and the material duly brought on record, let me now proceed to consider and examine whether amount of Rs. 30,000 computed by the Tribunal as compensation under the head, "loss of enjoyment, comforts, amenities of life, pain and suffering and loss of studies", requires to be suitably and properly enhanced. Coupled with this is also the related question as to whether computation of compensation of Rs. 30,000 under the head, "expenditure likely to be incurred for future treatment", also requires to be suitably increased. I have referred to the aforesaid evidence in great details with a view to find out whether the appellant suffered such injuries and these injuries in turn caused such permanent impairment and disability in the appellant that a very high amount of compensation under both the aforesaid heads only can compensate the appellant for the loss suffered by him. Before examining the medical evidence on the subject, I would like to first and foremost lay stress on the fact that appellant belongs to a family, which is both affluent as well as highly educated. The appellant does not belong to a downtrodden family, nor an uneducated family. The appellant was studying in an elitist public school of Delhi and by virtue of this fact alone he had ventured into an excursion trip to Chail from Delhi. He was a student of class 8th at the time of the accident (16.5.1993). It is also brought on record that the appellant was very good in studies and also used to play games and sports. He was fond of cycling as well as swimming. The fact of the appellant belonging to a rich, affluent and elitist family is also borne out from the corroborative evidence that he received treatment in the best hospitals of Delhi.

(11.) The aforesaid background has been taken note of by me with a view to hold that the appellant had a bright future ahead of him and that had he not been impaired physically and mentally due to this accident and had he not suffered disability of a grave nature, he would have done exceptionally well in life as well as in his professional career because he surely would have chosen a professional career, which would have been both challenging as well as bright in prospects. Such a person, as compared to a person, who did not have bright prospects in life and whose career profile could not be projected as being on the higher side, is always entitled to a higher amount of compensation because the basic principle behind the law of Torts which is now to be read in sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in compensating the victim of a wrong is to make sure that compensation is awarded to him commensurate with the suffering undergone by him. Actually it is keeping this principle in mind that in our modern jurisprudence we have evolved the system of capitalising the compensation by application of an appropriate multiplier to a suitable multiplicand and undoubtedly even though the multiplier is determined mainly on the basis of the years, the multiplicand is arrived at directly linked with the income of the victim of the accident, whether he/she died in the accident or had suffered injuries. The income of the victim being the basis of the multiplicand, undoubtedly has a direct nexus with the victim's status in society and, therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the fact of the victim belonging to an affluent, elitist family would have a direct bearing to the computation of the compensation amount to be awarded to him.

(12.) In the aforesaid background, let us now consider the testimony of the most important medical witness, namely, Dr. Ashok Bhatt, who as a Consultant Neuro- surgeon had not only examined the appellant and had conducted the diagnostic analysis upon him, but also had to perform operation upon him. According to this doctor, during the operation, the surgeons had to make a window, i.e., an opening in the right frontal area of the skull, which was partially closed subsequently. As per the opinion of this witness, appellant would have to be very careful and cautious in the entire future regarding the positioning of the frontal area of his skull and he has to always avoid being in stress or putting weight on this part of the body. Appellant also might require anti-convulsant drugs for the whole of his life since he was .suffering from seizure disorders. As per the witness, seizure disorder means that the patient is likely to get/suffer from epileptic fits from time to time. The appellant was also having difficulties in higher mental functions like concentration and behaviour because area in which appellant suffered injuries controls the higher mental functions and the same have been impaired in the appellant's case. The disability is for lifetime. According to this witness, the appellant cannot study in future like a normal student nor the witness is sure whether the appellant can lead a proper married life physically. The witness is definite that the appellant cannot appear for any Civil Services competitive examinations, like, IAS, etc.

(13.) Dr. Jawahar Dar, Senior Neuro- surgeon, who had given his medical report, PW-3/A, had clearly opined that there was fracture running in the frontal bone of the appellant onto the orbital roof with fracture running along with orbital roof as well. There was a large fracture involving the cribriform plate and extending into the ethmoid. The herniated brain tissue was excised and dural graft used to close the dural defect. Related observations have been made by this doctor in the aforesaid medical report, which have been noticed by me in the earlier part of this judgment. The latter part of Exh. PW-3/A clearly reveals very very complicated nature of the operation performed upon the skull and other parts of the body on the appellant and apart from the fact as to how much agony the appellant might have suffered, it also reveals the complications in the nervous system that the appellant would be subjected to for the rest of his life.

(14.) In the light of the aforesaid irrefutable medical evidence and the family background of the appellant as well as the fact of the appellant studying at the relevant time in a public school and the appellant being a brilliant student, doing well in studies as well as extra-curricular activities and prospects of his future advance in life careerwise as well as otherwise including his married life having been greatly jeopardized and impaired as well as diminished, awarding Rs. 30,000 under the first head and Rs. 30,000 under the last head was very very unjust because under both these heads the aforesaid compensation amounts were ridiculously on the lower side, I wish to combine both the heads into one head and instead of total compensation amount of Rs. 60,000 under both the heads, I wish to proceed to award a lump sum higher compensation in lieu of Rs. 60,000. (15.) As on the date of the accident the appellant was aged 13 years and was studying in class 8th. After the accident he was taken to P.G.I., Chandigarh, where he remained admitted for about a week and was brought to Delhi in an ambulance. Because of continued watery discharge from his nose and a lot of pain in his head, he was taken to M.C.K.R. Hospital where he remained admitted and during his admission he suffered from high fever. He was discharged after a long treatment but even after discharge, he continued having a watery discharge from his nose and was once again admitted in the same hospital. Extensive investigations were carried out. He says that he tends to forget everything and there was lot of uncomfort and uneasiness in his life. According to him, he cannot play sports nor games. After the accident, in the 8th standard examination in the school, he had obtained only about 10 per cent marks in the final examination. Of course despite his having failed, the school authorities promoted him to class 9th because of peculiar circumstances. In class 9th final examination he secured between 25 per cent and 30 per cent marks and once again was promoted to class 10th because of peculiar background. In class 10th also he kept performing miserably. Whereas before the accident the appellant used to go to school in a school bus, after the accident his mother would drop him to the school in her car. Prior to the accident he used to play football, basketball and cricket and also used to have swimming sessions in the local club, but after the accident he stopped doing all these physical activities.

(16.) In a situation like the present one, I cannot evolve a particular formula for computing the compensation amount but looking to the age of the appellant at the time of the accident and the fact of his future impairment and disability, I would not hesitate to fix a multiplicand of a suitable amount, which in my opinion should be a bare minimum amount of Rs. 30,000 per annum, valid and applicable for the whole of appellant's remaining life. In my considered opinion in view of the aforesaid facts and the aforesaid background of the case, appellant surely and safely can be said to have suffered the monetary loss of at least to the tune of Rs. 30,000 per annum, this loss being computed on an average basis and it being valid for the entire remainder of appellant's life. While computing the aforesaid multiplicand, I have taken into account the loss in studies, the loss in future career prospects, the loss in the prospects of a normal happy married life, loss in earning capacity and the loss in enjoyment and comforts of life because of permanent impairment as well as permanent disability, directly linked with the functioning of central nervous system as well as other brain disorders.

(17.) Since the appellant was aged 13 years at the time of the accident, in this case multiplier of 16 to the aforesaid multiplicand would be an appropriate multiplier. Applying the multiplier of '16' to the aforesaid multiplicand of Rs. 30,000, the compensation amount under the heads, (a) Loss of enjoyment, comforts, amenities of life, pain and suffering and loss of studies and (e) Expenditure likely to be incurred for future treatment, is capitalised at Rs. 4,80,000.

(18.) Under the heads (b), (c) and (d), the Tribunal has awarded the total amount of Rs. 1,15,000 as compensation. Adding Rs. 1,15,000 to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,80,000 total compensation amount is now worked out at Rs. 5,95,000.

(19.) The total compensation accordingly shall stand enhanced from Rs. 1,75,000 to Rs. 5,95,000.

(20.) In para 28 of the impugned award the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the award amount from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the deposit of the compensation amount in the Tribunal. Because of the enhancement of the compensation amount, direction regarding the interest is required to be suitably modified, I accordingly direct, that first and foremost the interest liability shall be decreased/reduced from 12 per cent to 9 per cent per annum. Secondly, on the compensation amount of Rs. 5,95,000 respondent No.

3 shall pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of the passing of the award, that is, from 16.11.1993 to 18.3.1998. The respondent No. 3 shall not be liable to pay any further interest and for any further/ other period on the aforesaid compensation amount if the balance amount, as now determined by me in this judgment, is paid to the appellant/deposited in the Tribunal within six weeks from today. If, however, respondent No. 3 fails to do so, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the aforesaid compensation amount from the date of the award till the amount is realised by the appellant. (21.) The appeal accordingly is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Cross-objections No. 20 of 1999: (22.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only ground urged in support of these cross-objections is that the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was not possessed of a valid driving licence. Issue No. 3, "Whether the driver of the said vehicle was not having any driving licence", as framed by the Claims Tribunal was decided against the respondent No. 3- cross-objector. I have seen the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 3 and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties feel that this finding deserves to be affirmed. The only ground urged in support of the cross-objections is that the driving licence was not endorsed for the hill driving. The irrefutable evidence brought on record is that the driver was possessed of a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle of every type. In a recent Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dharmu, 2005 ACJ 1149 (HP), this court has clearly held that if a driver is possessed of a valid driving licence which authorised and entitled him to drive a transport vehicle, there is no need of any further endorsement of the licensing authority, over and above what is already contained in the said driving licence. Apart from this, it was not the contention of the cross-objector before the Tribunal nor is it its contention in this court that the owner of the vehicle was guilty of any negligence or that it failed to verify the credentials of the driver or the relevant facts relating to his being possessed of a valid driving licence. In a recent judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have clearly held that to avoid its liability the insurer has to establish the aforesaid negligence and failure on the part of the owner. Since in these cross-objections, or before the Claims Tribunal, respondent No. 3 did not set up such a plea, I cannot subscribe to the point of view urged by respondent No. 3 in these cross-objections. (23.) The cross-objections, therefore, are liable to be dismissed. (24.) In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The cross-objections are dismissed. Appeal allowed.