ORDER Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13th September 2002 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Claim Case No. 112/99, the respondent Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The claimants are the parents of the deceased Bipin Kumar Singh. The said Bipin Kumar Singh, a resident of Village – Panchkhuti, Baghmara, P.S. - Kurshela, District – Katihar, while returning home on 18th April 1999 in the wee hours in the morning at around 4 O’clock was involved in an accident caused by the offending vehicle, a tractor bearing Registration No. BR-11A/6286, and died on the spot. The deceased Bipin Kumar Singh being unmarried, his only heirs - the parents filed the above Claim Case No. 112/99 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhagalpur under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The claimants claimed that the deceased Bipin Kumar Singh was around 25 years of age, was engaged in cultivation of his own land and was taking cash crops like banana, sugarcane and chilli. He was earning around Rs. 2,000/- a month; that the appellant United India Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “the Insurer”) was the insurer of the offending tractor; that the claimants were entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,60,628/-, being the amount of loss of earning, funeral expenses and the loss of estate. 3. The claim was contested by the Insurer. According to the Insurer, the owner of the vehicle had committed breach of the conditions of insurance; the Insurer was, therefore, not liable to pay the compensation; although negligence was attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle, the driver was not made a party to the claim case; that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. 4. In support of their claim, the claimants, besides examining themselves, examined Rajiv Kumar and Dinesh Kumar Singh, the eye witnesses and passengers of the offending tractor. 4. In support of their claim, the claimants, besides examining themselves, examined Rajiv Kumar and Dinesh Kumar Singh, the eye witnesses and passengers of the offending tractor. According to the said eye witnesses, the accident occurred on 18th April 1999 at about 4 O’clock in the morning while the eye witnesses and the deceased and one another person were returning to the village after watching a drama; that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor; that the tractor turned turtle killing the deceased and one another on the spot. The said eye witnesses were not cross-examined by the Insurer. The Insurer did not lead any evidence. In absence of any evidence led by the Insurer, the learned Tribunal has accepted the claim in toto. The learned Tribunal has believed that the deceased was cultivating his own land and was earning Rs. 2,000/- every month; that the driver of the offending tractor possessed a valid driving licence. After calculating the annual income of Rs. 24,000/- of the deceased and applying the 15 years multiplier and deducting one third of the amount as personal maintenance of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- for loss of income and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- for the loss of estate and the funeral expenses. The learned Tribunal has also awarded costs in the sum of Rs. 300/-. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurer has preferred this Appeal. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the offending tractor was insured as goods carrier alone. The owner of the offending tractor had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance by allowing passengers to travel by the tractor. He has submitted that the Insurer is, therefore, not liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal below. 6. Appeal is contested by learned advocate Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh appearing for the respondents-claimants. 7. Although it is submitted that the offending tractor was insured on condition that it would be used as goods carrier only and it shall not carry any passenger, the Insurer did not raise a specific plea that the deceased and the others were travelling in the tractor as passengers. In absence of a specific plea raised by the Insurer, the Tribunal below has not framed issue nor has recorded a finding on the point. In absence of a specific plea raised by the Insurer, the Tribunal below has not framed issue nor has recorded a finding on the point. The Insurer, therefore, cannot be allowed to raise that plea for the first time in the present Appeal. The next question is whether the Tribunal below has correctly computed the compensation. Having regard to the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants, the multiplier of 15 years adopted by the Tribunal below does not call for interference. As to the income of the deceased, the claimants did not produce any evidence of the deceased owning agricultural land, or his personal cultivation or the cultivation of cash crop. The Tribunal could not have accepted the word of the claimants as gospel as the source of income was the land; the only loss of income would be the labour put in by the deceased; the entire income of the deceased cannot be the loss of income as the claimants can still cultivate the land, may be through a hired labour. If the deceased were earning Rs. 2,000/- every month by cultivating his own land, his labour can safely be estimated to be not more than Rs. 1,000/- a month. The maximum loss of income in that case would be Rs. 1,000/- per month. The Tribunal below has erred in not appreciating that the claimants can still cultivate the land or get it cultivated; that the monthly loss to the claimants is not more than Rs. 1,000/- that comes to annual loss of Rs. 12,000/-. Considering the future rise in the income, the average annual loss of income can be estimated at Rs. 18,000/-. The Court has to take care of the expense of marriage of the deceased and also the amount spent on his own maintenance and the amount required for maintenance of his prospective family. These call for a deduction of at least one half of the income of the income of the deceased. In absence of the appropriate pleading at least 1/3rd of the income is required to be deducted on personal maintenance of the deceased. The ultimate loss of income suffered by the claimants would be Rs. 12,000/-. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- for loss of income instead of Rs. 2,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal below. Adding Rs. The ultimate loss of income suffered by the claimants would be Rs. 12,000/-. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- for loss of income instead of Rs. 2,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal below. Adding Rs. 2,500/- by way of loss of estate and the funeral expenses, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,82,500/-. 8. In view of the above discussion, the Appeal is partially allowed with proportionate costs to the extent that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,82,500/- (One lack eighty two thousand five hundred only) less Rs. 50,000/- paid under Section 40 of the Act. The impugned judgment and award dated 13th September 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Claim Case No. 112/99 stands modified to the above extent. The award of interest and costs is confirmed.