JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 29th March, 2007 passed by v. MACT (Fast Track), Ratlam in claim Case No. 44/06 whereby the claim petition filed by Appellants was allowed and compensation of Rs. 55,000/- was awarded on account of death of one Raisingh and Respondent No. 5 Insurance Company was exonerated, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the Appellants filed a claim petition alleging the Raisingh @ Ramchandra was the son of Appellants. It was alleged that on 5th June, 2004 at about 7:00 pm when Raisingh was returning to home and was sitting on a tractor bearing registration No. MP/14-G/0014 attached with trolley bearing registration No. MP/14-G/0015 which was owned by Respondent No. 2 and driven by Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, at the time Raisingh feel down and the wheel of the Tractor rolled over him. It was alleged that because of this Raisingh sustained crush injuries and died on spot. It was alleged that the offending tractor and trolley was insured with Respondent No. 5, therefore, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and 5 are liable for payment of compensation. The claim petition was contested by Respondent No. 5 on various grounds including on the ground that since Raisingh was travelling on the mudguard of tractor and there was no space for sitting the passenger, therefore, Raisingh died because of his own negligence. It was alleged that Respondent No. 2 was also not possessing the valid driving license. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000/- on account of death of Raisingh and exonerated the Respondent No. 5, against which present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants argued at length and submits that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis @ Rs. 15,000/- per year and applied multiplier of 8 and also deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and thereafter against deducted half amount on account of contributory negligence. It is submitted that the formula which was adopted by the learned Tribunal is unknown to law. It is submitted that in a death case amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. 15,000/- per year and applied multiplier of 8 and also deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and thereafter against deducted half amount on account of contributory negligence. It is submitted that the formula which was adopted by the learned Tribunal is unknown to law. It is submitted that in a death case amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. So far as liability of Respondent No. 5 is concerned, it is submitted that since no evidence was adduced by Respondent No. 5, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the Respondent No. 5. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Darshana Devi 2008 ACJ 1388 wherein death of a person sitting on mudguard of tractor when he fell down due to its rash and negligent driving and the contention of Insurance Company was that deceased was passenger in the Tractor and not third party and he was travelling on mudguard in breach of insurance policy and driver had no license to drive the tractor and the Tribunal held that tractor was not being used for agricultural purposes for which it was insured and owner insured had contravened terms of contract of insurance, therefore, Insurance Company cannot escape from liability of third party but it is entitled to recover the amount from the insured, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that liability of Insurance Company is statutory and the defence is limited and dismissed the appeal filed by Insurance Company. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Gayatribai v. Nathu Singh II (2009) ACC 120: 2009 (1) TAC 95, wherein Tractor was insured for agricultural purposes and the deceased was fare paying passenger, this Court held that since the trolley was carrying agricultural produce at the time of accident and no evidence led by insurer to prove that alleged trolley attached with tractor was not insured, it was held that Tribunal committed error in exonerating Insurance Company from liability. On the strength of aforesaid position of law and the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Counsel submits that the appeal filed by the Appellants be allowed and the impugned awarded be modified accordingly. 4. On the strength of aforesaid position of law and the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Counsel submits that the appeal filed by the Appellants be allowed and the impugned awarded be modified accordingly. 4. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 submits that since the offending tractor was being used for commercial purposes, while the same was insured for agricultural purposes, therefore learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated Respondent No. 5. It is submitted that since the facts are proved from the evidence of Appellants themselves, therefore there was no necessity on the part of Respondent No. 5 to adduce any evidence. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Santosh 2007 ACJ 2778: 2007 (4) T.A.C. 704, wherein it was held that Insurance Company is required to prove that conductions of policy were breached so as to exonerate itself from liability. It was further held that in case where claimant himself has admitted that he was travelling as a member of marriage party in a goods vehicle Insurance Company was not required to prove anything. Further reliance is placed on decision in the matter of Kuleshwar Sahu v. Firanta Sahu 2008 A.C.J. 903: 2007 (4) T.A.C. 859, wherein a contention was that Insurance Company did not plead the breach of policy in accordance with Order VI, Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure, Chhattisgarh High Court has held that Insurance Company pleaded breach of terms of policy and it was admitted by the claimant and owner of vehicle was being used for transporting road construction material whereas it was insured for agricultural purposes, therefore, it was not necessary for Insurance Company to prove its plea by examining its own witnesses as Insurance Company can prove its contention by evidence of others also. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned Counsel submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper, which requires no enhancement. It is submitted appeal be dismissed. 5. From perusal of the record it is evident that to prove the case Appellants have filed the documents relating to criminal case which are Ext. P/1 to Ext. P/5. Appellants have also examined Raoji PW/1, while Respondent No. 1 has examined himself as DW/1. Policy of offending vehicle was filed in the criminal case and certified copy of the same is on record. P/1 to Ext. P/5. Appellants have also examined Raoji PW/1, while Respondent No. 1 has examined himself as DW/1. Policy of offending vehicle was filed in the criminal case and certified copy of the same is on record. It is not the case of Respondent No. 5 that the offending vehicle is not insured with Respondent No. 5. No Evidence has been adduced by the Respondent No. 5 to the effect that the offending vehicle was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in violation of terms of policy. It was also not the case of Respondent No. 5 in the written statement that the offending vehicle was being driven for commercial purposes, while it was insured for agricultural purposes. On the contrary case of the Respondent No. 5 was that the terms of the policy was violated as Respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid driving license. NAW/1 has produced the license Ext. D/1, which goes to show that the Respondent No. 1 was possessing valid driving license. Appellants have nowhere admitted the fact that the offending vehicle was insured for agricultural purposes. In absence of any evidence adduced by Respondent No. 5 to prove that the offending vehicle was used for agricultural purposes, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating Respondent No. 5. 6. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, deceased was aged 15 years. Since, the deceased was minor and accident is of the year 2004 therefore it appears that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. In the opinion of this Court amount of compensation for which Appellants are entitled is as under: _______________________________________________________ Rs. 1,50,000/- Toward s loss of dependency, Rs. 5,000/- Towards funeral expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of estate. Rs. 10,000/- Towards loss of love and affection._________________________________________________________ Rs. 1,70,000/- Total   _________________________________________________________ 7. In other words, in view of this, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- by way of compensation. So far as liability of Respondent No. 5 is concerned, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal so far as it relates to exoneration of Respondent No. 5, is set aside holding that Respondent No. 5 shall be liable jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of Appellant No. 2 in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the Appellant No. 2 is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of Appellant No. 2, which shall be opened, by the Appellant No. 2 from where Appellant No. 2 can withdraw the amount as per her needs. However, on an application by the Appellant 2 this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the Appellant No. 2. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed off. No order as to costs.