Judgment : 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the lower Court in M.C.O.P. No.91 of 1999 dated 28.11.2003. The second respondent before the lower Court is the appellant herein. The claimants before the Court are the respondents 1 and 2 and the first respondent before the lower Court is the third respondent. 2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Appeal would be as follows: (a) On 3.8.1996 at about 14:30 hours near Parasur village the Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration Nos.TN-25-4036 and TN25-4037 respectively came in a very rash and negligent manner and caused the death of V. pandiyan, an agricultural labourer came along with the said vehicles. The accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor driver. Due to the accident, the said person, namely, V. Pandiyan, died. He earned a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. The driver drove the vehicle and caused the accident in the course of employment under the 1st respondent, who was the owner of the vehicles. The second respondent was the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured with. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation at Rs.2,00,000/-. (b) The second respondent denied that the vehicles involved in the said accident were insured with them. They also denied the statement that the driver of the vehicle had a valid licence to drive the vehicle and the licence was in force on the date of the accident. They further denied the age of the claimant and income. The second respondent denies the amount claimed under Part 1 and II of Column 21 is also false. The accident occurred on 3.8.1996 at Parasur village and F.I.R. Cr. No.443 of 1996 was filed by Cheyyar Police Station. In the above F.I.R., the driver of the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-25-4036 and Tractor bearing Registration No. TN-25-4037 which caused the accident was stated to be one Madhavan. In the said Criminal case above said Madhavan admitted the offence and paid the fine. But in the MVI report the licence of one Pattarbiran and other particulars were mentioned. The said Madhavan and Pattarbiran were with different identity and not the same. In the said Criminal case above said Madhavan admitted the offence and paid the fine. But in the MVI report the licence of one Pattarbiran and other particulars were mentioned. The said Madhavan and Pattarbiran were with different identity and not the same. To hide the fact that one Madhavan had no proper driving licence at the time of accident, one Pattarbiran driving licence has been given to M.V. Inspector to make the Insurance Company liable. The petitioners knowingly did the above mischief and stated the accused driver’s name as Madhavan (alias) Pattarbiran in the Claim Petition filed by them. The second respondent firmly states that Madhavan and Pattarbiran are different persons. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the Petition. 3. The lower Court had examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and admitted Exs.P1 to P4 on the side of the claimants and R.W.1 and R.W.2 and admitted Exhibits R1 to R4 on the side of the second respondent and had come to a conclusion of directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% till the date of payment with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the lower Court, the second respondent/Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal. 4. Heard Mr. S. Arunkumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.G. Padmanabhan, the learned counsel for the first respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/second respondent would submit in his argument that the Tribunal had miserably failed to consider the violation of policy conditions by permitting the passenger to be carried in a Tractor. However, it had found the appellant liable to pay compensation. He would also submit that the claimants have not filed any documentary proof that the deceased Pandian was travelling as an agricultural labourer at the time of accident. He would further submit that the owner of the Tractor had violated the rules of permit and policy conditions by carrying a person in addition to the driver at the time of accident and, therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He would further submit that the owner of the Tractor had violated the rules of permit and policy conditions by carrying a person in addition to the driver at the time of accident and, therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He would again submit that the evidence adduced on the side of the 2nd respondent through R.W.1 and R.W.2 and Exhibits R1 to R4 were not considered by the lower Court, but the Insurance Company was made liable to pay the compensation without any additional premium paid by the owner of the vehicle. 6. He would rely upon the judgments of Hob’ble Apex Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Basavachari and another, 1999 (1) SCC 552 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan, AIR 1999 SC 3252 , for the proposition that the owner of the vehicle alone is liable in the given circumstances of the case before the lower Court. He would also submit that the driver of the vehicle, namely, Pattarbiran, who drove the Tractor at the time of accident, did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicles. He would also submit that the judgment of lower Court passed in favour of the claimants is liable to be set aside since there was no extra-premium paid for the person dead, who traveled in the vehicle, and no such policy was available in between the parties. He would also submit that the F.I.R. produced by the claimants cannot be controverted and the claimants cannot adduce a different version against the contentions of the F.I.R. 7. He would rely upon the judgment of our Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla and others, 2007 (2) TN MAC 106 (SC): 2007 AIR SCW 3591 in respect of his case. He would again draw the attention of the Court to the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Bench Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya and others, 2002 ACC 299 (SC), to the effect that the liability of the Insurance Company is to a limited extent under Section 95(2) of the Act it would not be allowed to pay the entire amount in the event of not paying any extra premium or higher premium for the payment of higher liability. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya and others, 2002 ACC 299 (SC), to the effect that the liability of the Insurance Company is to a limited extent under Section 95(2) of the Act it would not be allowed to pay the entire amount in the event of not paying any extra premium or higher premium for the payment of higher liability. He would again bring to the notice of the Court a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2004 (2) TN MAC 43 (SC): 2003 (3) CTC 380, for the proposition that the Insurance Company is not liable for the person or class of person to whom there was no specification in the policy when they were not covered by a statutory provision. Therefore, he would request the Court that the deceased person, who was said to be an agricultural labourer accompanied in the Tractor and Trailer driven by its driver, to whom no additional premium has been paid by the owner of the vehicle cannot at any stretch of imagination be held liable to compensate for the loss of his wife. 8. He would further submit that the quantum of compensation as calculated by the lower Court is also contrary to law since it had taken the age of the deceased person for ascertaining the multiplier to which the multiplier should have been fixed only with the age of the dependants/parents. Therefore, he would request the Court to exonerate the appellant/Insurance Company from paying the compensation to the claimants and thus the Appeal be allowed. 9. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant would submit in his argument that the appellant/Insurance Company is certainly liable to pay the compensation since the deceased was actually not travelling in the Tractor or Trailer at the time of accident but was pushing the vehicle along with others to a higher level of the road since the Tractor was not able to pull the Trailer and, therefore, he cannot be considered as a person traveled in the Tractor or Trailer and, therefore, the claim that the Insurance Company, is not liable to pay the said compensation to the claimants is unsustainable. He would further submit in his argument that there is no contradiction in between the F.I.R. Ex.P1 and the evidence since the F.I.R. was not given by any eye witness but was given only by V.A.O. and, therefore, the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court as cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. He would further submit in his argument that the deceased Pandian was not a passenger at the time of accident and, therefore, there is no question of any additional premium to be paid in the policy in order to bring the Insurance company under the clutches of liability. No doubt, the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court cited by the learned counsel for the appellant had settled the principles of law regarding the payment of extra premium. However, the facts of the present case is different since the deceased person cannot be construed as a passenger or a traveler at the time of accident. He would further submit that the evidence of P.W.2 would categorically prove that the deceased Pandian was pushing the Tractor to the higher level of the road since the Tractor could not pull the Trailer with the sugarcane load and at that time only the driver of the Tractor drove the Tractor and Trailer in a rash negligent manner and the deceased Pandian was caught under the wheels and died on the spot. He would insist in his argument that the deceased Pandian did not travel on the Tractor nor on the Trailer at the time of accident, and, therefore, the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. He would further submit that the name of the driver was omitted to be given as Madhavan @ Pattarbiran in the F.I.R., Ex.P1 as well as in the M.V.1. report, Ex.P3 and the said omission cannot cloth any right to the appellant. The liability fastened against the Insurance Company along with the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation in favour of the claimants is perfectly alright and it is not liable to be set aside. report, Ex.P3 and the said omission cannot cloth any right to the appellant. The liability fastened against the Insurance Company along with the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation in favour of the claimants is perfectly alright and it is not liable to be set aside. Moreover, he would submit in his argument that the quantum of compensation as calculated by the lower Court is also perfectly alright and, therefore, the judgment and award passed by the lower Court are not liable to beset aside and the Appeal may be dismissed with costs. 12. I have given anxious thoughts to the argument advanced on either side. 13. The accident which happened on 3.8.1996 at about 2.30 p.m. in the public road at Parasur village of Cheyyar Taluk in which the agricultural labourer. Mr. Pandian was caught under the tyres of Tractor and Trailer and died on the spot is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle, who has insured his vehicles, namely, the Tractor bearing registration No. TN-25-4036 and Trailer bearing registration No. TN-25-4037, with the second respondent in the claim petition. It is also not disputed that the accident had happened during the coverage of the Insurance period. In the back drop of the case, the Insurance Company is disputing its liability to pay compensation payable its liability to pay compensation payable to the deceased Pandian, by stating that the owner of the vehicle had violated the Policy rules and he did not pay any extra premium for the additional traveler in the Tractor or Trailer. 14. Now we have to approach the contentions with the help of the oral and documentary evidence in order to solve the points. According to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla and others, 2007 (2) TN MAC 106 (SC): 207 AIR SCW 3591, it has been categorically laid down as follows: “15. A party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise is objection at the appropriate time. According to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla and others, 2007 (2) TN MAC 106 (SC): 207 AIR SCW 3591, it has been categorically laid down as follows: “15. A party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise is objection at the appropriate time. If the objection is not raised and the document is allowed to be marked and that too at the instance of a party which had proved the same and where for consent of the other party has been obtained, the former in our opinion cannot be permitted to turn round and arise a contention that the contents of the documents had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon.” Quoting the aforesaid judgment, it was contended by the appellant/Insurance Company that the contents of Ex.P3 cannot be explained by the oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants. 15. For that, we have to peruse the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 Admittedly, P.W.1, was not an eye witness. P.W.2 was an eye witness, who witnessed the accident on the fateful day. However, the F.I.R. was given by V.A.O. of the village. Ex. P1 is the F.I.R. which would go to show that it had been given by the V.A.O. of Naval village. On a careful perusal of Ex.P1, we could see that he was not an eye witness to the accident and he heard something and had given the FIR. Therefore, it cannot be said that the contents of the FIR are proved by mere production of the said document on the side of the claimant. On a careful perusal of Ex.P1, we could see that he was not an eye witness to the accident and he heard something and had given the FIR. Therefore, it cannot be said that the contents of the FIR are proved by mere production of the said document on the side of the claimant. The evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that the Tractor with the Trailer was having the load of sugarcane could not climb over the higher level of the road despite engine of the Tractor was pulling and, therefore, the persons available in and around the said place including P.W.1 along with the deceased Pandian had pushed the Trailer as well as the Tractor for clearing the higher level of the road in support of the engine and the deceased Pandian was pushing the Tractor by standing in between the Tractor and Trailer and at that time, the driver of the Tractor had in a rash and negligent manner drove the Tractor and thereby the deceased Pandian caught under the tyres and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. In the evidence of P.W.2 nothing was suggested to him that the deceased Pandian was travelling as a passenger in the Tractor and he fell down and sustained injuries. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 is unimpeachable and it cannot be held that it is contradicting the F.I.R. IN Ex.P1. In the aforesaid circumstances, the production of MVI Report, Ex.P2 will not also affect the evidence of P.W.2 to the effect that the deceased Pandian was not travelling either on the Tractor or on the Trailer at the time of accident. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla and others, 2007 (2) TN MAC 106 (SC): 2007 AIR SCW 3591, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 16. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the violation policies are concerned, he cited the judgment of Honx ble Apex Court reported in between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya and others, 2002 ACC 299 (SC) and the relevant passage relied on by him would be as follows: “7. The liability could be statutory or contractual. A statutory liability cannot be more than what is required under the statute itself. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya and others, 2002 ACC 299 (SC) and the relevant passage relied on by him would be as follows: “7. The liability could be statutory or contractual. A statutory liability cannot be more than what is required under the statute itself. However, there is nothing in Section 95 of the Act prohibiting the parties from contracting to create unlimited or higher liability to cover wider risk. In such an event, the Insurer is bound by the terms of the contract as specified in the policy in regard to unlimited or higher liability as the case may be. In the absence of such a term or clause in the Policy, pursuant to the contract of Insurance, a limited statutory liability cannot be expanded to make it unlimited or higher. If it is so done, it amounts to re-writing the statute or the contract of insurance which is not permissible.” 17. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2004 (2) TN MAC 43 (SC): 2003 (3) CTC 380. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “10. If the concerned employee is neither a driver nor conductor nor examiner of tickets, the insured cannot claim that the employee would come under the description of “any person” or “Passenger”. If this were permissible, then there would be no need to make special provisions for employee of the insured… … 1. 11. … … … … 2. 12. So a person carried in pursuance of a contract of employment would be a passenger and would be covered as such. The exclusion of this clause in the Proviso to Section 147(1) (b) of the present Act bolsters our reasoning that employees other than the three mentioned are not covered by Section 147(1)(b).” According to the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, we could see that the death of bodily injured, any person other than the driver or authorised person were dealt with. Stressing the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was insisted on the side of the Insurance Company that the deceased person in this case was travelling in the Tractor and the policy did not permit to carry more than one person, namely, the driver, and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay or make good the loss caused to the insured owner. It is also contended that even if additional and extra premium should have been paid and in this case, no other premium has been paid by the insured and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. 18. We have already seen that the deceased Pandian was not sitting on the Tractor or Trailer at the time of accident and he was found pushing the Tractor to a higher level of the road as spoken by P.W.2. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased Pandian was travelling on the Tractor and fell down and met the accident and sustained injury and died as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the principle laid down in the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as cited above is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore the liability of the owner of the Tractor and Trailer has to be indemnified by the appellant/Insurance Company. It is also the case of the second respondent/Insurance Company that the evidence adduced by the claimants that the driver of the vehicle was one Madhavan is contradicted in the Motor Vehicles Report Ex.P3, by mentioning that the driver was one Pattarbiran and, therefore, the said contradiction would go to show that the Policy conditions are also violated. 19. On that point, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the F.I.R. mentions the name of the driver as Madhavan and the Motor Vehicles Inspector Report, Ex.P3, mentions the name of the driver as Pattarbiran and in the Claim Petition, the name of the driver has been given as Madhavan @ Pattarbiran in order to overcome the contradiction made in those two documents. We have to see whether the madhavan and Pattarbiran are the same persons or different persons. The second respondent/Insurance Company has produced the claim form submitted by the owner of the vehicle as Ex.R3. In the said document, the name of the driver is mentioned as R. Pattarbiran in column No.3. Similarly, in Ex.P3, MVI Report, the name of the driver is mentioned as R. Pattarbiran, S/o. Rajendran. In the Investigation Report filed by the second respondent/Insurance Company, Ex.R2, it has been categorically mentioned that the name of the driver was one Madhavan in page 3, column VIII. The name of the driver of the vehicle involved for the accident was mentioned as Madhavan in F.I.R. Ex.P1. In the Investigation Report filed by the second respondent/Insurance Company, Ex.R2, it has been categorically mentioned that the name of the driver was one Madhavan in page 3, column VIII. The name of the driver of the vehicle involved for the accident was mentioned as Madhavan in F.I.R. Ex.P1. Except in F.I.R., Ex.P1, in all other documents the description of driving licence is mentioned as 377/ANI 92, as issued by the Assistant Licensing Authority, Arani. That shows that the said driving licence was held by Madhavan @ Pattarbiran. It is seen through those record that the driver of the vehicle involved in that accident was Mr. Madhavan @ Pattarbiran and his name would have been mentioned os Madhavan only in the F.I.R. and it should have been followed in the investigation by the respondents. Therefore, the claim of the appellant/Insurance Company that the contradiction had crept in the F.I.R. regarding the driver of the vehicle and thereby Policy conditions were violated cannot hold water. 20. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Court is concerned, it had taken a notional income at Rs.1,400/- p.m. towards the income of the deceased Pandian. Considering his age at 28, it had fixed the multiplier at 18 and had arrived the annual total income at Rs.16,800/-. The lower Court had calculated the total sum at Rs.3,02,400/- towards his loss and after deduction of 1.3, it was reduced to Rs.2,01,600/-. The lower Court did not calculate the other special damages payable to the claimants. The said fixation of multiplier at 18 based upon the age of the deceased is not legally sustainable. No doubt, the claimants are parents of the deceased person as the deceased Pandian died as a bachelor. The mother is aged at about 45 years on the date of accident and, therefore, her age should have been considered for fixing the multiplier. 21. According to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in between Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC): (2009 (6) SCC 121, it has been held for a person aged about 45 years, the multiplier would be at 12. When the compensation is calculated with the notional income of Rs.1,500/-, it would come to Rs.1,44,000/-. As regards the Loss of Love and Affection is concerned, the claimants are entitled to Rs.20,000/-. When the compensation is calculated with the notional income of Rs.1,500/-, it would come to Rs.1,44,000/-. As regards the Loss of Love and Affection is concerned, the claimants are entitled to Rs.20,000/-. Further, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is fixed towards Funeral Expenses and a sum of Rs.35,000/- is fixed towards the Loss of Estate for the death of the Pandian. If these calculations are made the total compensation would be at Rs.2,05,000/-. The lower Court had come to a conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs.2,01,600/-. Since the claimants have asked for a sum of Rs.2,00,000 only, the lower Court had awarded the same with subsequent interest as prayed for. 22. Therefore, this Court does not see any point for interfering with the finding of the lower Court regarding the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation or towards the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower Court. 23. Therefore, the Appeal preferred by the appellant deserves dismissal and accordingly, it is dismissed by confirming the judgment and award passed by the lower Court. No costs.