P. K. JAISWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 29. 2. 2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, datia in Claim Case No. 44 of 1997. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a claim petition alleging that their son Monu was travelling in jeep bearing registration No. DAO 9945 as passenger and was going from Basai to Jhansi on 5. 10. 1997 at 10 in the morning. No sooner the jeep reached Basai square the appellant no. 2, who was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently applied the brakes forcefully, due to which the deceased Monu ahirwar who was sitting in the jeep was thrown out and fell on the road. Due to the accident he received injuries and died on the spot. The jeep was owned by appellant no. 1 and driven by the appellant No. 2. According to the claimants the jeep was driven rashly and negligently by appellant no. 2, which has resulted in the accident in which Monu Ahirwar died. The Claims tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record passed the award of Rs. 60,000 against the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Claims Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from its liability on the ground that appellant No. 2 was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and he was only having a learner's licence and the jeep was insured as a private vehicle, whereas at the time of accident the jeep was found carrying passenger for hire and reward in contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance by the appellant. The Claims Tribunal held that owner and driver of the said vehicle were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for appellants contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 acj 1 (SC) and National Insurance Co. The Claims Tribunal held that owner and driver of the said vehicle were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for appellants contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 acj 1 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwani, 2004 (1) Supreme 275 , wherein it is held that learner's licence is also a valid licence and insurance company would be liable to satisfy an award if the vehicle was driven by a person holding a learner's licence. He submitted that in the instant case at the time of accident, vehicle was driven by the appellant No. 2 who was having a learner's licence and as such the learned Claims Tribunal committed error in holding that insurance company was not liable to indemnify the insured. ( 3 ) IN view of the above decisions of the apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC) and Bhagwani, 2004 (1)Supreme 275 , the learned Claims Tribunal committed error in holding that learner's licence is not a valid licence and also committed error in exonerating the insurance company. ( 4 ) AS regard the question of liability is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that jeep is a private vehicle and was not used as a taxi on hire and reward and Claims Tribunal committed error in holding that the deceased was travelling in the jeep after paying fare and vehicle was used as a taxi and, therefore, insurance company was not liable to pay the amount of compensation. He drew my attention to the unreported Division Bench decision of this court in the case of National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tanuja, M. A. No. 725 of 2000; decided on 23. 8. 2005, in which it has been held that an 'act policy' issued by an insurer to cover the statutory liability as provided in sections 146 and 147 of the act will provide the cover of indemnity in regard to the death of or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger in a motor car (private vehicle ). Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that vehicle was used as taxi for commercial purpose. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that vehicle was used as taxi for commercial purpose. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bafatbai, 1996 ACJ 336 (MP), the division Bench of this court has held that the occasional use of the motor vehicle for commercial purpose does not exonerate the insurance company from payment of its liability. Khuman alias Khumma, AW 1 in para 2 of his statement had stated that the deceased was travelling as a passenger and was going to Jhansi. In para 27 of his cross-examination he stated that only jeep owner using the jeep was carrying passengers for hire and reward and from Badera to Basai and they charged Rs. 3 per person. He stated that the deceased was travelling along with other passengers, but no one was examined. Raju, AW 6, in para 4 of his cross-examination stated that he had not seen as how many passengers were sitting or travelling in the jeep. He denied that driver was taking fare from the passengers. From the evidence it is clear that the jeep was not used as a taxi on hire and reward and the persons who were travelling in the vehicle had not paid the fare. Considering this fact the Claims Tribunal has wrongly held that vehicle was used as a taxi and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the insurance company drew my attention to para 2 of the statement of Khuman alias Khumma, aw 1 and para 3 of the statement of Raju, aw 6 and contended that the deceased was travelling as a passenger along with other passengers in the jeep after paying fare, whereas the jeep was insured as a private vehicle and was found to be used as a taxi for hire and reward which is contrary to the terms of the policy and learned Claims tribunal rightly held that the vehicle was used as a taxi and exonerated the insurance company from payment of compensation. The Division Bench of this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tanuja, M. A. No. 725 of 2000; decided on 23. 8. The Division Bench of this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tanuja, M. A. No. 725 of 2000; decided on 23. 8. 2005, has held that the private vehicle if used as a taxi and unauthorisedly carries passengers for hire or reward, there would be a breach of the terms of the policy and the insurance company may avoid liability to indemnify the insured. In the instant case claimant has very vaguely contended that at the time of accident the vehicle was being illegally used as a taxi by collecting fare from the passengers for hire and reward which is contrary to the terms of the policy. But no issue was framed nor any evidence was led in that behalf by the claimant. In absence of any evidence the contention of learned counsel for insurance company cannot be accepted and learned claims Tribunal committed error in holding that at the time of accident jeep was used as a taxi for hire or reward. In the instant case insurance company has not examined any witness in support of their contention and they are relying only on the evidence of Khuman alias Khumma, AW 1 and raju, AW 6. ( 6 ) FROM the perusal of evidence of Khuman alias Khumma, AW 1 and Raju, AW 6, it is not proved that the deceased was travelling as a passenger. However, after appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company and the evidence on record, I find that there is no evidence to show that the vehicle was used as a taxi and was unauthorisedly carrying passengers for hire and reward. Hence, in the light of the judgment in the case of National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tanuja, M. A. No. 725 of 2000; decided on 23. 8. 2005,i hold that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2-claimants contended that cross-objection was filed by the claimants for enhance-ment of compensation from Rs. 60,000 to rs. 1,00,000. The cross-objection is filed on 11. 9. 2001 and the same is taken on record. The deceased was about 13 years of age at the time of accident and he was studying in class VI and as such he had no income. Under the Second Schedule to the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, notional income is Rs. 60,000 to rs. 1,00,000. The cross-objection is filed on 11. 9. 2001 and the same is taken on record. The deceased was about 13 years of age at the time of accident and he was studying in class VI and as such he had no income. Under the Second Schedule to the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, notional income is Rs. 15,000 per annum. Taking notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000 per annum, the dependency of claimants comes to Rs. 5,000 per annum being 1/3rd of the notional income. Deceased was only 13 years of age and was under 15 years of age, it will be appropriate to apply multiplier of 15 and after applying the multiplier of 15 to Rs. 5,000 the amount is determined up to Rs. 75,000. To this amount further sum of Rs. 25,000 under various heads of damages such as funeral expenses, etc. , are awarded. ( 7 ) IN the result, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lakh ). The respondent Nos. 1 and 2-claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of award till its realisation. The insurance company, respondent No. 3, is liable to indemnify the insured. The appeal and cross-objections are allowed and the award of Claims Tribunal is modified. No costs. Appeal allowed. .