SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of M. A. No. 358 of 1997 (Bapu v. Karan Singh) and M. A. No. 357 of 1997 (Ram Narayan v. Karan Singh) as they arise out of the same accident. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that on 16. 5. 1994 tractor-trolley No. MP11-3164 and MP-11-4769 owned and driven by respondent/non-applicant No. 1 karan Singh and insured with respondent/ non-applicant No. 2, insurance company and tractor No. MP-11-7220 driven by radhe Shyam were carrying barat party. The deceased Daryao, son of appellant-claimant Nos. 1 and 2 and father of appellant Nos. 3 to 5, and Sangita, daughter of appellant-claimant Ram Narayan, were travelling in the tractor No. MP-11-7220. Near Talen Valley, Daryao and Sangita alighted from the tractor of Radhe Shyam for urination. Radhe Shyam proceeded with his tractor asking them to come in the tractor of Karan Singh which was coming behind. After sometime Karan Singh came there driving his tractor in rash and negligent manner, it turned turtle and crushed daryao and Sangita, as a result of which they died on the spot. The deceased Daryao was working as humrnal (coolie) in Indore and was earning Rs. 35,000 per year. The parents, his sons and daughters filed Claim case No. 167 of 1996 claiming compensation of Rs. 10,60,000 and Ram Narayan, his wife and sons have filed Claim Case no. 168 of 1996 seeking compensation of rs. 4,60,000 for the death of Sangita. The respondent No. 2, inter alia, pleaded that karan Singh, the owner of the tractor committed breach of the insurance policy as he carried passengers in the tractor. According to insurance company Daryao Singh andSangita were travelling in the tractor of Karan Singh and they fell down due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor. Karan Singh also had no valid driving licence, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. MP-11-3164 by Karan Singh, as a result of which daryao Singh and Sangita sustained injuries and died. It further held that Karan singh committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by carrying barat party in his tractor, therefore, insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. It further held that Karan singh committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by carrying barat party in his tractor, therefore, insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,22,200 for the death of Daryao singh and Rs. 52,000 for the death of sangita to be paid by Karan Singh. Being aggrieved of the amount of compensation and absolving of insurance company, the l. Rs. of deceased Daryao filed M. A. No. 358 of 1997 and L. Rs. of deceased Sangita filed M. A. No. 357 of 1997. Respondent no. 1 filed cross-objections. ( 3 ) MR. S. M. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned tribunal committed error in holding that the deceased Daryao Singh and Sangita were travelling in Karan Singh's tractor and they fell down therefrom and sustained injuries. He submitted that the evidence on record clearly proves that both of the deceased persons were travelling in the tractor driven by Radhe Shyam. They got down from the tractor of Radhe Shyam to ease themselves and after urination they were waiting for the tractor of Karan Singh who came there driving his tractor rashly and negligently. It turned turtle and struck against Daryao and Sangita, as a result of which they died. He, therefore, contended that the deceased were not travelling as passengers in the offending tractor. They were third party and, therefore, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation. Mr. Jain further submitted that the insurance company entered in compromise with other occupants of this tractor and paid them compensation. Mr. D. D. Vyas, learned AAG for respondent No. 1, Karan singh, submitted that the tractor was insured with respondent No. 2, therefore, it was liable to pay compensation. On the other hand, Mr. Dandwate, learned counsel for insurance company supported the impugned award. ( 4 ) WE considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the evidence. It has come in the statement of Bapu, CW 1, the father of deceased Daryao and Ram Narayan, CW 2, the father of Sangita, that the barat of bhur Singh was coming from Miyapura in two tractors, belonging to Karan Singh and Radhe Shyam. They further deposed that they were travelling in the tractor driven by Radhe Shyam along with deceased Sangita and Daryao. They further deposed that they were travelling in the tractor driven by Radhe Shyam along with deceased Sangita and Daryao. The deceased got down from the tractor for easing themselves Radhe Shyam asked them to come in the tractor of Karan Singh which was coming behind. They further stated that karan Singh came there driving his tractor at high speed, as a result of which it struck against Daryao and Sangita and turned turtle. No evidence in rebuttal has been produced by the respondents. Karan Singh did not examine himself nor was examined by the respondent insurance company. The learned Tribunal committed error in disbelieving the evidence given on oath before it on the basis of F. I. R. , Exh. P-2, wherein it was mentioned that the deceased were travelling in the tractor driven by karan Singh. Ratan Singh who is alleged to have lodged this F. I. R. or the police officer who had recorded it, has not been examined. Therefore, on the basis of Exh. P-2, the substantive evidence of the above witnesses cannot be brushed aside. In our opinion, from the evidence of the appellants' witnesses it has been proved that sangita and Daryao were travelling in the tractor driven by Radhe Shyam and they got down for urination and thereafter karan Singh came driving his tractor rashly and negligently and dashed against them, as a result of which they sustained injuries and died on the spot. ( 5 ) IT is true that Karan Singh was carrying passengers in his tractor-trolley in breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. According to the insurance policy only six labourers could be carried in the tractor. But the tractor did not overturn because of the travelling of the passengers in the trolley. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC), where the driver of the truck allowed more persons to travel in the truck than allowed by Motor Vehicles Rules and the insurance policy, held that on account of this breach, insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability. Ltd. , 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC), where the driver of the truck allowed more persons to travel in the truck than allowed by Motor Vehicles Rules and the insurance policy, held that on account of this breach, insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability. Even otherwise, in view of the provisions of sections 95 (5) and 96 (1) of the Motor Vehicles act, which are quoted below, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation: "95 (5) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in any law, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons. 96 (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (4) of section 95 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 95 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment-debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. " from the perusal of above, it is clear that even if the insurer was entitled to avoid the liability of paying compensation on some grounds, still it was liable to pay compensation to the person entitled to the benefit of the award. In view of the provisions of sections 95 (5) and 96 (1) of the Motor vehicles Act, the respondent insurance company was liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. If the insurance company feels that it was not liable to indemnify the insured, it could take legal steps against the insured in accordance with the provisions of law. If the insurance company feels that it was not liable to indemnify the insured, it could take legal steps against the insured in accordance with the provisions of law. The learned Tribunal committed error in absolving it. ( 6 ) NOW we come to the question of quantum of compensation. M. A. No. 358 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 167 of 1996) ( 7 ) 7. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,22,200 to the L. Rs. of the deceased Daryao. In our opinion, the amount of compensation does not appear to be on lower side. Bapu, CW 1, the father of the deceased Daryao, stated that his son Daryao was working as hummal at indore and he used to pay him Rs. 5,000 yearly. He admitted in cross-examination that male labourers were paid Rs. 30 per day while women labourers were paid rs. 25 per day. He did not state as to what was the daily earning of the deceased daryao Singh. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal on the basis of the statement of Bapu that male labourers were earning Rs. 30 per day, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 900. In our opinion, the assessment of the learned tribunal in view of the evidence cannot be said to be erroneous. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd of it for personal expenses of the deceased determined monthly dependency at Rs. 600 and selected multiplier of 16 in view of the age of the deceased which was 35 years and worked out Rs. 7,200 x 16 = Rs. 1,15,200. It further awarded Rs. 5,000 for loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, totalling Rs. 1,22,200. In our opinion, this amount is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. M. A. No. 357 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 168 of 1996) ( 8 ) IN this case, the learned Tribunal had awarded Rs. 52,000 for the death of deceased Sangita aged about 10 years. Admittedly Sangita was not an earning member. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said to be on lower side. A Division bench of this court in case of Dev Chand v. Babulal Faujdar Bus Service, 1997 ACJ 392 (MP), awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the death of a child in accident which had occurred on 9. 5. 85. Admittedly Sangita was not an earning member. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said to be on lower side. A Division bench of this court in case of Dev Chand v. Babulal Faujdar Bus Service, 1997 ACJ 392 (MP), awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the death of a child in accident which had occurred on 9. 5. 85. Even otherwise Sangita was aged about 10 years, after sometime, she would have been married and would have gone to her matrimonial home. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. ( 9 ) IN the result, both the appeals are partly allowed and the award is modified and it is directed that the respondent insurance company shall pay the amount of compensation to the claimants with interest as directed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeals partly allowed. .