JUDGMENT :- A.M. Sapre, J. 1. This is a miscellaneous appeal filed by claimant under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 9.12.2000 passed by Fourth Additional M.A.C.T., Mandsaur in M.A.C.C. No. 39 of 2000. 2. By impugned award, the claimant's application was partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 50,000 was awarded to the claimant for the death of one Narayan, who died in a vehicular accident. However, while passing the award, Claims Tribunal exonerated the insurance company (insurer) from the liability and accordingly award was passed only against the insured, i.e., owner of the offending vehicle and driver of the offending vehicle. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is firstly, whether Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the death of Narayan and if not, whether any case for enhancement is made out and to what extent? Secondly, whether Tribunal was justified in exonerating the insurance company from the liability arising out of accident? 4. Heard Ms. Indira Vyas, the learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Kamna Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel with Mr. Pradeep Agrawal, learned counsel for insurance company. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the entire case including evidence adduced by the parties, I am inclined to answer both the questions formulated above in favour of the claimant (appellant herein). In other words, in my opinion, the appellant is entitled for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and secondly, insurance company is liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal and now enhanced by this court. 6. On 7.1.1995, Narayan was sitting in a trolley attached with the tractor bearing No. MP 14-G 1608. This tractor was owned by Madan Singh, NA-2 (respondent No.2), driven by NA-1 (respondent No. 1) and insured with NA-3 (respondent No. 3). When the tractor-trolley was going on a road, it turned turtle due to which Narayan fell down from the trolley and succumbed to injuries on the spot. 7. It is this event which gave rise to filing of the claim petition by the wife of Narayan (appellant herein) out of which this appeal arises. According to claimant, Narayan was around 70 years of age at the time of his death. 7. It is this event which gave rise to filing of the claim petition by the wife of Narayan (appellant herein) out of which this appeal arises. According to claimant, Narayan was around 70 years of age at the time of his death. He was hale and hearty though working as labourer. It was alleged that he died due to negligence of driver of offending vehicle. Claimant accordingly claimed compensation for his death as provided under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. The case was contested by the non-applicants. According to insurance company, no liability could be fastened upon them because on the date when accident took place, driver of the offending vehicle (non-applicant No. 1) did not possess the driving licence. 9. Parties adduced evidence. The insurance company adduced evidence to show that Tufan Singh did not possess licence on the date of accident. 10. By impugned award, the Tribunal held that Narayan died in the accident, that he was aged around 70 years, that Tufan Singh did not posses driving licence, that the claimant is entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 50,000 by way of compensation and lastly, since Tufan Singh, i.e., driver of offending vehicle did not possess driving licence and hence, no liability could be fastened upon the insurance company arising out of accident. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the claim petition in part and passed an award of Rs. 50,000 together with interest 12 per cent per annum only against driver and owner of the offending vehicle thereby exonerating the insurance company. It is against this award that the claimant has preferred this appeal on two grounds mentioned supra. 11. Coming now to the first point, that is, whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the claimant. In my opinion, it is on the lower side. One cannot deny the fact that the life of a human being is precious and same cannot be measured in terms of money once it is lost yet on account of judicial precedents and the Act made by Parliament, sufficient guidelines are provided to measure the life of human being on his death for awarding compensation. The award of Rs. 50,000 for the death of person aged 70 years is not justified. As observed supra, it is on lower side. I disagree with the Tribunal on this issue. 12. The award of Rs. 50,000 for the death of person aged 70 years is not justified. As observed supra, it is on lower side. I disagree with the Tribunal on this issue. 12. It has come in evidence that Narayan was a labourer and he was hale and hearty. He did not suffer any ailment and was not dependent on anyone. Similarly, only because he was a labourer could not be a ground to hold that he had no right to live with dignity till last. 13. In my view, taking into account overall circumstances, I consider it just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 (one lakh fifty thousand) by way of lump sum compensation to his widow, i.e., the claimant. This will include all kinds of compensation provided under the Act. This enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. In this view of the matter, the award in question, which is impugned in this appeal is modified in favour of claimant to this extent. 14. Coming now to the second point, namely, whether Tribunal was justified in exonerating insurance company from liability arising out of the accident. Even on this issue, I am inclined to hold in favour of the claimant and against insurance company by reversing the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 15. In my view, the case of claimant and that of the insurer/insured falls in condition No. 8 of National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC). It cannot be disputed that Tufan Singh was having learner's driving licence. He had deposited the fees for that purpose on 4.1.1995 as is clear from Exh. Dl whereas accident in question occurred on 7.1.1995. To his misfortune, the driving licence was issued in his name on 16.1.1995 instead of 4.1.1995. It cannot be disputed that it was also possible for the licensing authority to have issued licence on 4.1.1995 itself or prior even to 7.1.1995 but due to procedural formalities, which remained to be completed, it was not issued. Be that as it may, the fact that Tufan Singh had deposited required licence fees on 4.1.1995 and the accident took place on 7.1.1995. It cannot be said that it was a case of no licence at all. In such case, benefit must go to the claimant rather than to the insurance company. Be that as it may, the fact that Tufan Singh had deposited required licence fees on 4.1.1995 and the accident took place on 7.1.1995. It cannot be said that it was a case of no licence at all. In such case, benefit must go to the claimant rather than to the insurance company. The benefit of beneficial legislation must go to those, who are needy and sufferer rather than to the insurer. In order to bring the case within excepted category of case, it must be proved that either driver relied on forged licence or no licence at all. In such a case, the court may consider by giving benefit to the insurance company but not in a case of this nature. 16. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid, I reverse the findings of the Tribunal on this issue and hold that Tribunal committed error in not fastening the liability on the insurance company. In other words, I hold that insurance company is also liable to suffer the liability arising out of the accident. 17. Learned counsel for the insurance company then argued that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger and, therefore, his liability was not covered. I find no merit in this submission for more than one reason. In the first place, insurance company did not file any policy. In other words, in order to show that risk of such person was not covered, it was necessary for the insurance company to have filed insurance policy. It was not done. Instead only policy showing the tractor was covered was filed. In absence of any evidence adduced by the insurance company, it was not possible for this court to hold that the insurance company was not liable to suffer the liability. It was the case of the claimant that deceased was travelling by sitting in the trolley and the said tractor-trolley was carrying soyabean duly insured with the insurance company. The aforesaid facts, in my opinion, are sufficient to hold that insurance company was liable because it was a case where tractor-trolley was being utilized for the purpose for which it was insured and not the one, attempted to be argued by counsel, namely, it was not being used for the purpose for which it was insured. 18. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 18. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part to the extent indicated above. In other words, award of Rs. 1,50,000 (one lakh fifty thousand) is passed against the respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum so far as enhanced sum is concerned. No costs.