ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the claimants aggrieved by an award dated 5. 9. 2000, passed by the Third additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chhatarpur in Claim Case No. 18 of 1999 awarding a sum of Rs. 71,000 on account of death of Vithol, aged 32 years. ( 2 ) IT is averred in the claim petition that in an accident dated 18. 2. 1999 when HMT tractor (MP 16-A 2362) was ploughing the agriculture land, it turned turtle, owing to which Vithol who was helping in the agriculture operation came beneath the tractor and died on the spot. The tractor was driven by Sobran, owned by Ghanshyamdas, insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Report of the incident was lodged. Crime was registered against the driver for offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal code at Crime No. 79 of 1999. Deceased owned 5 acres of agriculture land. In addition, he was an agriculture labourer, used to earn Rs. 20,000 per annum. Compensation of Rs. 5,55,200 was claimed. ( 3 ) THE owner and driver in their reply contended that the vehicle was insured. Deceased was not driving the tractor at the time when accident took place, but, he was taking a bath near pond (talaiyd ). Owing to mechanical defect the tractor slipped and turned turtle, due to which Vithol died. Hence, the liability is that of the insurer. ( 4 ) THE insurer in its reply contended that driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Excessive compensation has been claimed. Insurer is not liable to make indemnification as the vehicle was plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. ( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal has found that when deceased was helping in agriculture operation of ploughing the field, at that time tractor turned turtle, owing to which deceased sustained injuries and died. Rash and negligent driving by driver Sobran has been found to be established. Insurer has been exonerated on the ground that though the deceased was helping in agriculture operation, but, no other person except the driver could travel on the tractor and risk of such a person was not covered under the insurance policy. ( 6 ) MR. Rash and negligent driving by driver Sobran has been found to be established. Insurer has been exonerated on the ground that though the deceased was helping in agriculture operation, but, no other person except the driver could travel on the tractor and risk of such a person was not covered under the insurance policy. ( 6 ) MR. Shreyus Pandit, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal as the tractor was used for the purpose of agriculture only, hence, the insurer cannot escape from its liability of making payment of compensation. ( 7 ) MR. Alok Beohar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while pressing the cross-objection on behalf of the owner and the driver has submitted that the tractor was used at the time of accident for the purpose of ploughing the field. The insurer cannot escape its liability. ( 8 ) MR. Pranay Gupta appearing with Mr. Anees Chouksey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has submitted that as the deceased was sitting on the tractor at the time when accident took place, it was not permissible to carry any person on the tractor except the driver, hence, the insurer has been rightly exonerated. Policy does not cover the risk of such a person. ( 9 ) IT is not in dispute and has also been found by learned Claims Tribunal that the tractor was being used for the purpose of agriculture at the time when accident took place. It is also the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased was not sitting as a traveller, but, was actually involved in helping the ploughing operation. All of a sudden tractor turned turtle, owing to which injuries were sustained and Vithol succumbed to the injuries on the spot. We find that the deceased was not a passenger on the tractor, but, was actually involved and helping in the agriculture operation at the time of accident. Tractor was in the agriculture field. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of passenger travelling on tractor unauthorisedy, as tractor was in use at the time of accident for the purpose of agriculture. In our opinion, the insurer cannot escape from the liability from making payment of compensation along with driver and owner. Tractor was in the agriculture field. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of passenger travelling on tractor unauthorisedy, as tractor was in use at the time of accident for the purpose of agriculture. In our opinion, the insurer cannot escape from the liability from making payment of compensation along with driver and owner. The decision relied upon by the Tribunal in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Tarawati, 1994 ACJ 822 (Pandh), is distinguishable on facts as deceased was travelling as a passenger. In the instant case, deceased was not a passenger, hence, there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. ( 10 ) COMING to question of quantum of compensation: Claimants have submitted that deceased owned 5 acres of agriculture land. However, no documents have been filed to show that deceased owned 5 acres of land. However, his income was taken by claims Tribunal at Rs. 5,000 per annum, which is not permissible. Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides that even for non-earning member, notional income has to be taken at Rs. 15,000 per annum. Deceased was a labourer and his earnings must have been at least Rs. 50 per day, which comes to Rs. 1,500 per month, annual income comes to Rs. 1,500 x 12 = rs. 18,000. 1/3rd amount has to be deducted towards the self-expenditure of the deceased which he would have spent had he been alive. Thus, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 12,000. Appropriate multiplier at the age of 32 years is that of 17. We apply that as widow and children are the claimants. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 12,000 x 17 = Rs. 2,04,000. In addition, claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,000 on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500 for loss to estate and Rs. 5,000 on account of loss of expectancy of life. Claimant-widow is also entitled for Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation comes to rs. 2,18,500. Enhanced compensation to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. ( 11 ) APPEAL and cross-objections are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Appeal allowed. .