JUDGMENT 1. - Background facts of the case, succinctly stated, are that on 14th January, 1998, deceased Mahaveer was going from Dausa to Bishanpura in a Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ 26-C-0046. The deceased Mahaveer alighted from the Jeep, but on account of rash and negligent driving, he was ran over with the rear wheels of Jeep and he trampled to death on the spot. Shri Kishan Singh lodged the FIR No. 8/1998 of this accident at Police Station, Sainthal, District Dausa. The police, after completion of investigation, found Rewat Singh, driver of the Jeep guilty of negligent driving and sent him to trial. The dependents of the deceased Mahaveer filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, where an award of Rs. 3,20,600/- was passed in favour of the claimants and against the driver and owner of the offending Jeep and the Insurance Company. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1168/2002 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company took me through the cover note and contended that the deceased was having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (Tractor) only, whereas at the time of accident, the deceased was driving the Jeep. Thus, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Jeep. He further canvassed that the offending vehicle (Jeep) was being run on hire and reward basis, whereas the Jeep in question was insured as a private vehicle. This fact stands strengthened by the statement of witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC. Thus, the driver of the offending vehicle committed a breach of the Insurance Policy, hence, in view of above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company be allowed, the Insurance Company be absolved from its liability to pay the quantum of compensation and the impugned award be modified accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and defended the impugned award on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Insurance Company could not be absolved from its liability as the tractor also fell into the category of Light Motor Vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and defended the impugned award on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Insurance Company could not be absolved from its liability as the tractor also fell into the category of Light Motor Vehicle. Learned counsel took me through the definition of "Light Motor Vehicle" given in Section 2 (21) of M.V. Act, 1988 and contended that Light Motor Vehicle included transport vehicle, omnibus and gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor-car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which did not exceed 7500 kgs. Even if it is presumed that the driver of Jeep was having a valid licence to drive the tractor only, then also in the light of the definition of LMV, it can be said that he was authorised to drive any Light Motor Vehicle, of which the unladen weight did not exceed 7500 kgs. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material, it is noticed that the driving licence of the driver of Jeep suggests the permission to drive a tractor. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company canvassed that it was not mentioned on the driving licence that he was authorised to drive LMV also. 6. I do not find any force in the argument of Mr. Agarwal for the simple reason that the definition of Light Motor Vehicle is inclusive, which not only includes a transport vehicle or a tractor or a road roller, but omnibus also, the gross or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. Adverting to the Registration Certificate of the Jeep Ex. Article 4, it is revealed that the unladen weight of the said Jeep was only 1060 kgs. If the driver Rewat Singh was authorised to drive the Tractor, which is also a Light Motor Vehicle as per the definition of Light Motor Vehicle given in Section 2(21) of M.V. Act, then he was authorised to drive the Jeep also, of which the unladen weight was only 1060 kgs. There is no provision in the Motor Vehicle Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor. There is no provision in the Motor Vehicle Act to grant the driving licence exclusively to drive the tractor. Since both the offending Jeep and the tractor are found to be the Light Motor Vehicle, hence it stands fully proved that the driver Rewat Singh was having a valid driving licence to run the Jeep also as the Jeep is also equally a Light Motor Vehicle as the tractor is, as per the above definition of LMV. 7. The second thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the Jeep was being used for carrying passengers on payment of fare. 8. It is noticed that no witness was produced on behalf of the Insurance Company in this claim petition so as to prove that the driver of the Jeep was driving the same for fare. Merely on the basis of statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code in any criminal case, it cannot be inferred that the driver of the Jeep in question was carrying passengers on payment of fare. The statement of the said witness recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code is not permissible for the purpose of adjudicating the claim petition. It is for the Insurance Company to prove that the driver of the Jeep was carrying passengers on payment of fare as it is the Insurance Company who has advanced this argument that the owner of the vehicle has committed the breach of condition of Insurance Policy. The Insurance Company has utterly failed to discharge the onus to prove that the vehicle was being used for carrying passengers on payment of fare. Hence, I do not find any force in this argument also put forth by Mr. Vizzy Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. Hence, the appeal filed by Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed.S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1047/2002 9. Dissatisfied with the award amount, the claimants Smt. Savita Sharma and others have beseeched to enhance the quantum of compensation from Rs 3,20,600/- to any just and appropriate amount. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has concentrated his arguments only on one ground that the Tribunal ought to have reduced ¼ from the income of the deceased in consideration to expenses incurred to maintain himself had he been alive with a view to reckon the loss of dependency. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has concentrated his arguments only on one ground that the Tribunal ought to have reduced ¼ from the income of the deceased in consideration to expenses incurred to maintain himself had he been alive with a view to reckon the loss of dependency. Learned counsel took me through the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8648 of 2007) and contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court having discussed the cases of Trilok Chandra, Fakeerappa and others, observed that where the deceased was married, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be ⅓ where the number of dependent family members is 2-3, it should be ¼, where the dependent family members is 4-6 and ⅕ where the number of dependent family members exceed six. In the instant case, the number of dependent family members is 6, hence, ¼th amount should be deducted from the income of the deceased to reckon the loss of dependency. The Tribunal instead of ¼th amount deducted ⅓rd amount from the income of the deceased, hence, the amount towards loss of dependency needs to be enhanced. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned award, in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) and looking to the number of the dependents, which are six in number, the learned Tribunal is found to have committed error while deducting ⅓rd of the personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, after deducting ¼th of the personal expenses of the deceased, the quantum of compensation is recomputed as under:-Personal expenses of the deceased = Rs. 2100 X ¼th = Rs. 525/-Having deducted personal and living expenses of the deceased, the annual dependency of the claimants dependents after applying the multiplier of 17 is computed thus: 2100 - 525 X 12 = Rs. 17,700 X 17 = 3,00,900/-. 12. After adding Rs. 10,000/- awarded under the head of consortium; Rs. 25,000/- awarded under the head of love and affection (Rs. 5000/- to each dependent); the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,35,900/-. Thus, the claimants appellants are held entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 3,35,900/- instead of Rs. 3,20,600/-. 13. 17,700 X 17 = 3,00,900/-. 12. After adding Rs. 10,000/- awarded under the head of consortium; Rs. 25,000/- awarded under the head of love and affection (Rs. 5000/- to each dependent); the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,35,900/-. Thus, the claimants appellants are held entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 3,35,900/- instead of Rs. 3,20,600/-. 13. The upshot of both the appeals is that the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1168/2002 filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. against Smt. Savita Sharma and others stands dismissed and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1047/2002 filed by Smt. Savita Sharma and other against Rewat Singh and others is partly allowed. 14. The claimants appellants Smt. Savita and others are held entitled to claim Rs. 3,35,900/- instead of Rs. 3,20,600/- from the non claimants-respondents jointly and severally. They are also held entitled to claim interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition till the amount is actually realized. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1047/2002 stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. 15. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. 16. Consequent upon the disposal of appeals, the stay application(s) filed therewith do/does not survive and the same also stand(s) disposed of.Order accordingly. *******