JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud,(Oral). The Insurance Company challenges the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 2,61,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization thereof, from the respondents jointly and severally. Since the vehicle which in question in this case was insured by the appellant herein, the liability was to be discharged by the Insurance Company as it was liable in law. 2. The facts as adjudicated by the learned Tribunal are that the claimants, who are the wife, sons and daughters of Sh. Ved Parkash instituted the petition on the pleadings that the deceased Ved Parkash, who was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident, was a government employee working with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Hamirpur. On 2.10.2004 he was travelling in the tractor bearing No. HP-19B-0232 owned by late Sh. Hukam Singh along with two labourers after loading Tanda (maize fodder) from village Lohara to Rehi, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra. Respondent No.1 was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and by a sudden jerk the deceased fell down and received grievous injuries. F.I.R. was registered at Police Station, Amb under Sections 279, 304-A and 201 I.P.C against the driver. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was an employee with the B.S.N.L. and was drawing a salary of Rs. 13,000/- per month and earning Rs. 2000/- from agriculture pursuits. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 15 lacs in all was claimed for the negligence and wrongful acts of the respondents. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 the owner and the driver filed joint reply stating therein that there was no cause of action in favour of the claimants. They denied that the deceased was travelling in the tractor and according to them, the First Information Report was lodged with respect to the accident. They only stated that the deceased was hit by some unknown vehicle. 4. Appellant Insurance Company contested the petition stating that the tractor was insured only for agriculture and forestry purposes and at the relevant time the tractor was being used for hire and reward which is in violation of the registration as to the use clause of the policy. They only stated that the deceased was hit by some unknown vehicle. 4. Appellant Insurance Company contested the petition stating that the tractor was insured only for agriculture and forestry purposes and at the relevant time the tractor was being used for hire and reward which is in violation of the registration as to the use clause of the policy. It was further pleaded that the tractor was used for carrying gratuitous passengers which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. There were seven settled issues for trial before the learned Tribunal. On the pleadings of the Insurance Company a specific issue settled was as to whether the tractor was being used for carrying gratuitous passengers. On the pleadings of the respondents i.e. owner and driver, the question of maintainability was raised. Dealing with the issue of maintainability, the learned Tribunal holds that there was no evidence on the record to show that the petition was not maintainable. There is also categoric recording in the judgment itself: “The respondent-Insurance Company has led no evidence to prove that the tractor was being used in violation of the terms of the insurance policy or that the tractor was being used without valid R.C. and fitness certificate and that the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license.” 5. Mr. J.S. Bagga, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company urges that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse and that the same cannot be sustained under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and even if the evidence on record is accepted as it is, no pleading was required, since it was a tractor which was involved in the accident and the admitted case of the parties is that the deceased was travelling in this tractor. He submits that the tractor was being used for hire and reward and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. He submits that the tractor was being used for hire and reward and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Learned counsel submits that issue numbers 4 and 5 have been framed regarding violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as also with respect to the fact that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and in this eventuality even if the Insurance Company had led no evidence, it was the bounden duty of the Tribunal to have taken the oral and documentary evidence of the claimants which in fact supported the case of the appellant. 6. Learned counsel relies upon the statement of RW1 Sh. Des Raj, who was the investigator of the Insurance Company and proved on record report Ext. RW1/A. During his investigation, he recorded the statement of tractor driver Sh. Kuldip Singh and his son Mohinder Singh etc. In his cross examination, he submits that the report itself states that Ved Parkash was sitting on the tractor and died when he suddenly fell down. Though the report is in detail but what must not be lost sight of is the fact that he had visited at the sight of accident after long period of time. I cannot accept this statement in its entirety as exonerating the Insurance Company. I do not find any other evidence on the record that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance of the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. V. Chinnamma and others, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 697 , holding: 15. Furthermore, a tractor is not even a goods carriage. The "goods carriage" has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean "any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods" whereas "tractor" has been defined in Section 2(44) to mean "a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller". The "trailer" has been defined in Section 2(46) to mean "any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle". 16. The "trailer" has been defined in Section 2(46) to mean "any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle". 16. A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of the "goods carriage" as contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decisions of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani (2003) 2 SCC 223 and others decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24.11.1991, i.e., much prior to coming into force of 1994 amendment” (P.701&702). 7. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brij Mohan and others, (2007) 7 SCC 56 , the Court holds: 10. Furthermore, respondent was not the owner of the tractor. He was also not the driver thereof. He was merely a passenger travelling on the trolley attached to the tractor. His claim petition, therefore, could not have been allowed in view of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors. [ (2003) 2 SCC 223 ] wherein the earlier decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh [ (2000) 1 SCC 237 ] was overruled. In Asha Rani (supra) it was, inter alia, held :- "25. Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors. [ (2003) 2 SCC 223 ] wherein the earlier decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh [ (2000) 1 SCC 237 ] was overruled. In Asha Rani (supra) it was, inter alia, held :- "25. Section 147 of the 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public service vehicle". Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmens Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a "goods carriage". 26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words "any person" must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. "a third party". Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. 27. Furthermore, sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place." [See also National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others [ (2005) 12 SCC 243 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors. [ (2006) 4 SCC 404 ]. (P.61-62) 8. Learned counsel also relies on the decision in United India Insurance Company Vs. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others [ (2005) 12 SCC 243 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors. [ (2006) 4 SCC 404 ]. (P.61-62) 8. Learned counsel also relies on the decision in United India Insurance Company Vs. Serjerao and others, (2008) 7 SCC 425 , holding: “6.So far as the question of liability regarding labourers travelling in trollies is concerned, the matter was considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan and Ors. (2007 (7) SCALE 753) and it was held that the Insurance Company has no liability. In view of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, we set aside the impugned order in each case and remit the matters to the High Court to consider the matters afresh in the light of what has been stated by this Court in Smt. Yallwwa Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007)6 SCC 657 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan (2007) 7 SCC 56 .” (P.427) 9. The evidence of PW6 Smt. Surindra Kumari, who is the wife of the deceased, is categoric that there is no cross examination on this point to the effect that the tractor was not being used for agricultural purposes. I am unable to find out from the evidence that the tractor was, in fact, being used for hire and reward. This submission, therefore, cannot be accepted. In V. Chinnamma’s case supra, the Supreme Court is clear when it says that the tractor can be used only for the purposes of agriculture and nothing else. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10. Adverting to the cross objection, the claimants seek increase in the compensation. The learned Tribunal on the facts holds that the deceased was earning Rs.10,027/-per month. The Tribunal reduces the income by holding that since the wife of the deceased was employed as Class IV in the same department on the compassionate ground and was paid Rs. 2,700/- per month as pension, the same required to be deducted from the dependency. This Court in Smt. Seema Devi and others Vs. Sh. Ajay Thakur and others, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 1098, holding : 12. 2,700/- per month as pension, the same required to be deducted from the dependency. This Court in Smt. Seema Devi and others Vs. Sh. Ajay Thakur and others, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 1098, holding : 12. The Apex Court in Bhakra Beas Management Board versus Kanta Aggarwal(Smt) and others, (2008)11 SCC 366 has also held that deductions are admissible from the amount of compensation in case the claimant receives the benefit as a consequence of injuries sustained, which otherwise he would not have been entitled to. It does not cover cases where the payment received is not dependent upon an injury sustained on meeting with an accident. In the present case the claimant-widow would have even otherwise got the benefit of the scheme floated by the Electricity Board had the deceased not died in a motor vehicle accident. (P.1103) 11. I find that the learned Tribunal has been remiss in making these deductions. Adverting to the multiplier, nobody disputes the age of the deceased in which event a multiplier of 13 is to be adopted which the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 8. I find that this approach is wrong since in Sarla Verma (SMT) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 13 has to be adopted. It is also urged before me that on the basis of Sarla Verma’s case supra, the addition of 30% income should not be allowed. I am unable to agree with this submission as no certificate of age has been produced on record and in Sarla Verma’s case, no addition is to be made in case the deceased was above 50 years of age. 12. Coming to the question of deductions, the compensation payable to the deceased would be Rs.10,027/-. The number of dependents is six (wife, four daughters and one son) in which event 1/4th is to be deducted for personal expenses which would be Rs.2,506/-. Thus, a sum of Rs. 7,521/- would be the dependency of the family. Compensation would, thus, work out to Rs. 7,521/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.11,73,276/-. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Cross Objection No. 389 of 2009 is accordingly allowed.