Judgment ( 1. ) -THESE appeals have been preferred by the claimants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Chhindwara in Claim Case Nos. 83 of 2002 and 6 of 2003 as per award dated 11. 5. 2004. ( 2. ) M. A. No. 1807 of 2004 has been filed by the claimants, Subelal and others claiming compensation on account of death of Raju aged 24 years. Claim petition has been filed by the widow, daughter, parents and sister of the deceased. Tikaram has filed Claim Case No. 6 of 2003. He has preferred M. A. No. 1810 of 2004. He also sustained injury in the accident, perforation in the abdominal area. He was operated upon. ( 3. ) DECEASED Raju and claimant Tikaram had gone to forest to load sand. Tractor was driven by Phulbhansha alias Phulla, owned by Waseem Ahmed and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Owing to rash and negligent driving, tractor turned turtle. Raju sustained severe injuries. He died on the spot. His age was 24 years. He used to earn a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month. Total compensation of Rs. 15,30,000 was claimed. ( 4. ) WHEREAS in the Claim Case No. 6 of 2003 Tikaram has claimed compensation for abdominal injury which was operated upon, a sum of Rs. 3,90,500 was claimed. He was treated at Chhindwara for considerable period. ( 5. ) THE driver was proceeded ex pane. The owner in the written statement contended that he has already sold the tractor to Champalal Rai. False report was lodged against him. The vehicle was insured with new India Assurance Co. Ltd. on the date of accident. ( 6. ) INSURER in the written statement contended that the driver; Phulbhansha alias phulla was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. However, vehicle was plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Apart from that it was used for a commercial purpose whereas policy was issued for agricultural user. ( 7. ) THE learned Claims Tribunal on the assessment of evidence has found that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving by Phulbhansha alias Phulla owing to which tractor turned turtle, in which Raju died and Tikaram sustained grievous injury. However, permanent disability has not been incurred by Tikaram. ( 8. ( 7. ) THE learned Claims Tribunal on the assessment of evidence has found that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving by Phulbhansha alias Phulla owing to which tractor turned turtle, in which Raju died and Tikaram sustained grievous injury. However, permanent disability has not been incurred by Tikaram. ( 8. ) TIKARAM has been awarded a sum of rs. 18,000 whereas in the death claim of raju-Claim Case No. 83 of 2003, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,09,000 in toto. ( 9. ) THE compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum in both the cases from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. The insurer has been exonerated as vehicle was plied for commercial purpose. ( 10. ) MR. D. S. Baghel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the compensation awarded in both the cases is inadequate. In the case of Raju assessment of income at Rs. 750 per month is on lower side. Just compensation has not been awarded. In case of tikaram who has sustained perforation, was operated upon and admitted for more than 14 days as an indoor patient in the hospital at Chhindwara, thus compensation of Rs. 18,000 is on lower side, same be suitably enhanced. ( 11. ) MR. Ajay Sen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. Dinesh Koushal learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 have submitted that no case for interference in both the appeals is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 12. ) FIRST coming to Claim Case No. 83 of 2002 out of which M. A. No. 1807 of 2004 arises relating to death claim of Raju. His age was 24 years, it was claimed in the claim petition that he was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. His widow Radha Bai, CW 1, has stated that he used to earn Rs. 100, sometime Rs. 50 per day. He used to go on the tractor to load the sand. He was also a labourer on the date of accident, when the deceased had gone to load sand. Tractor was owned by Waseem Ahmed. 3,000 per month. His widow Radha Bai, CW 1, has stated that he used to earn Rs. 100, sometime Rs. 50 per day. He used to go on the tractor to load the sand. He was also a labourer on the date of accident, when the deceased had gone to load sand. Tractor was owned by Waseem Ahmed. In cross-examination, she has stated that her husband used to perform the work of coolie also and for that purpose he used to receive rs. 25 to Rs. 30 per day. The overall statement if considered it appears that the statement with respect to income of Rs. 25 to Rs. 30 per day, appears to with respect to work of coolie, not with respect to other kind of works which used to be performed by the deceased. Thus, assessment of the income at Rs. 750 is on the lower side. Subelal has also stated that the deceased used to earn Rs. 100 to Rs. 200 per day. Tikaram, the co-labourer has also stated that Raju used to earn Rs. 80 to Rs. 100 per day. Thus, in our opinion, it would be safe to assess the income at Rs. 2,000 per month, the annual income thus comes to rs. 24,000, making 1/3rd deduction which the deceased would have spent on himself had he been alive, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 16,000. Multiplier of 17 is applicable at the age of 24 years, we apply the said multiplier. Thus, on account of loss of dependency, the compensation comes to Rs. 16,000 x 17 = Rs. 2,72,000. In addition, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000 on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000 for loss to the estate, rs. 5,000 is awarded to widow on account of loss of consortium and a further sum of rs. 5,000 is awarded to the claimants for the loss of expectancy of life. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,92,000 (rupees two lakh ninety-two thousand ). The compensation enhanced by us to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. ( 13. ) COMING to Claim Case No. 6 of 2003 out of which M. A. No. 1810 of 2004 arises. It is clear from documents on record that perforation in the abdominal area had taken place. ( 13. ) COMING to Claim Case No. 6 of 2003 out of which M. A. No. 1810 of 2004 arises. It is clear from documents on record that perforation in the abdominal area had taken place. There is X-ray report, Exh. P6 of District Hospital, Chhindwara, which indicates that perforation in abdominal area was detected. Bed-head ticket of District hospital, Chhindwara is also on record. Tikaram was admitted as an indoor patient, he was operated upon on 16. 8. 2002 for the aforesaid perforation under anaesthesia. He remained admitted thereafter as per the bed-head ticket up to 29. 8. 2002. He was given treatment also. Claimant was taken from Chhinda Parasia to Chhindwara for treatment where treatment was obtained for about 15 days. Thus, considering the grievous nature of injury which was sustained, award of compensation of Rs. 18,000 is on lower side. We award a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000 (rupees forty thousand) in all heads including pain and suffering, expenditure on medical treatment, conveyance, expenditure on attendant, special diet and loss of earnings. Compensation enhanced by us to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation. ( 14. ) COMING to liability of the insurer: we find from the statement of Tikaram, cw 3, that owner used to sell sand after it was collected in the tractor. Thus, Tikaram, CW 3, in Claim Case No. 83 of 2006 in para 7 has stated that Waseem Ahmed used to stock the sand and used to sell sand, bricks, etc. Thus, the tractor was not used for purpose connected with the agriculture on the date of accident it was used for commercial purpose. Hence, the insurer is not liable to make the payment of compensation. However, the claimants can recover the compensation from the insurer and insurer in turn can recover from owner as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari begum, 2004 ACJ 1903 (SC ). ( 15. ) THUS, the appeals are partly allowed. The parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Appeals partly allowed.