JUDGMENT : B. Chandra Kumar, J. 1. The appeal and cross objections arise out of the award dated 07-01-2005 passed O.P. No. 434 of 2001 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-CUM-I-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/-. The Insurance Company is challenging the said award in M.A.C.M.A. No. 492 of 2005. The claimants in the cross-objections are seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The 1st claimant is the father, the 2nd claimant is the mother and the 3rd claimant is the unmarried sister of the deceased Nallaganthula Srinu. 4. On 23-01-2000 at about 8 a.m., the deceased was ploughing the land of one Yadagiri Reddy at Garlakuntapalem of Nidmanoor with the Tractor bearing No. AP-26-T-462. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent-Sri V. Srinivasa Reddy was the owner of the Tractor and the said Tractor was insured with the 2nd respondent Insurance Company. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was driving the Tractor at the time of accident. It is also not in dispute that the accident occurred when the said Tractor was used for ploughing the land of Yadagiri Reddy. It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and supporting them. 5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. 6. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contested the matter on various grounds. One of the grounds taken by the Insurance Company is that since the deceased himself was driving the Tractor and the accident occurred due to the own negligence of the deceased, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The second contention of the Insurance Company is that since the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and since the Tractor was hired to one Yadagiri Reddy, if need not pay compensation to the claimants. 7. Before the Tribunal, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W. 1 and eye witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, the Senior Assistant working in the office of the United India Insurance Company was examined as R.W. 1 and copy of the policy was marked as Ex. B-1. 8. 2 and 3 and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, the Senior Assistant working in the office of the United India Insurance Company was examined as R.W. 1 and copy of the policy was marked as Ex. B-1. 8. On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. 9. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- along with proportionate costs and interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 10. As far as the issue of accident occurring due to the own negligence of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal relying on the judgment of this Court in Shahazadi Bee and Others Vs. The Managing Director, APSRTC and Another, (2004) ACJ 1773 came to the conclusion that since the claim was made u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), the claimants need not plead and prove the negligence of any other person and it is sufficient if it is proved that the vehicle is involved in the accident. With regard to the allegation of hiring the vehicle to one Yadagiri Reddy, the Tribunal concluded that since the vehicle was used only for agriculture purpose for ploughing the land, there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal has also referred to the conditions of the policy and concluded that there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. 11. The main contention of Smt. P. Lakshmi, learned counsel for the claimants is that the order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified. The Tribunal has given valid reasons for its findings. As seen from the conditions of the policy, it is clear that the Tractor can be used for agriculture purpose and in the present case, the Tractor was used for agriculture purpose and, therefore, there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also her contention that the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident. He was working as a driver and there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is also her contention that the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident. He was working as a driver and there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. Relying on the judgment of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 149 it is submitted that 50% has to be added to the actual income of the deceased while calculating the future prospects and it is also her case that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 12. Now, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:- 1. Whether the claimants i.e., legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to compensation and whether the deceased himself was negligent in driving the vehicle? 2. Whether there are any violations of the terms and conditions of the policy? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount? 4. .To what relief? 13. Section 163-A of the MV Act reads as follows:- 143-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle,' compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person." 14. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the claimants are entitled for compensation when it is proved that the vehicle in question is involved in the accident i.e., the accident occurred out of use of the motor vehicle. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the claimants are entitled for compensation when it is proved that the vehicle in question is involved in the accident i.e., the accident occurred out of use of the motor vehicle. Sub-Section (2) of Section 163-A of the Act makes it clear that in any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) of Section 163 of the Act, the claimants shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disability in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Thus, it is clear that the claimants need not plead or prove the aspect of negligence. When the claimants need not plead or prove the aspect of negligence, the issue of negligence would not arise while considering Section 163-A of the Act. 15. This Court has dealt with the similar issue in M.A.C.M.A. No. 2066 of 2006, dated 27-11-2013. In the case between Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited v. Lalitabai and others (Misc. First Appeal No. 31626 of 2009 (MV), Dated 30.08.2012), the Karnataka High Court observed as follows. "Having regard to the language of Section 163-A of the Act, this is a non issue (negligence issue) for awarding compensation u/s 163-A of the Act. The requirements are only as to whether an accident involving motor vehicle took place resulting in death or bodily injury of the nature mentioned in the schedule which entitles one for compensation irrespective of who contributed or who was negligent for causing the accident. While examining the scope of a statutory provision like this Courts should keep in mind the intention of the legislature to provide compensation to the dependants of such person who dies in an accident without making the question of negligence an issue and that is why Section 163A of the Act has been introduced in the statute book by way of amendment and as an exception to the normal claim petition that can be preferred u/s 166 of the Act." 16. So, in view of the above discussion, the claim of the claimants cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. 17. So, in view of the above discussion, the claim of the claimants cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. 17. As seen from the record, admittedly the policy permits the owner of the Tractor to use the Tractor for agriculture purpose. Admittedly, the Tractor was used for agriculture purpose. Whether the Tractor was used for ploughing the land of the 1st respondent or his friend Yadagiri Reddy, it makes no difference. Normally, no agriculture owner particularly after implementation of the Land Reforms Act, can purchase a Tractor for the purpose of cultivating his own lands. The policy conditions do not prevent the owner from using the Tractor to plough the lands of his relatives or friends. As seen from the evidence on record, no suggestion was given to P.W. 3 that the Tractor was hired to Yadagiri Reddy on the date of accident. 18. Yadagiri Reddy himself was examined as P.W. 3. According to P.W. 3, the Tractor was engaged for ploughing his land. It has to be seen that P.W. 3 specifically denied the suggestion that he had hired the Tractor on the date of accident. According to P.W. 3, the owner of the Tractor V. Srinivas Reddy is his relative. There is nothing on record that the Tractor was hired to Yadagiri Reddy (P.W. 3). It is averred-as-'engaged' which does not mean hiring of vehicle. In view of the same, the evidence of R.W. 1 cannot be accepted. R.W. 1 had no direct knowledge. Therefore, there is nothing on record to say that the Tractor was hired to Yadagiri Reddy on that day and there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. 19. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there are no merits in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and M.A.C.M.A. No. 492 of 2005 is accordingly dismissed. CROSS OBJECTIONS:- 20. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident. According to P.W. 1, the deceased was working as a driver of the Tractor and earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried. The only suggestion given to P.W. 1 is that the deceased was not earning Rs. 3,000/- but was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident. According to P.W. 1, the deceased was working as a driver of the Tractor and earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried. The only suggestion given to P.W. 1 is that the deceased was not earning Rs. 3,000/- but was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month. Except giving suggestion to P.W. 1, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1. 21. Normally, an agricultural coolie would get above Rs. 100/- per day. Admittedly, the deceased was a driver and he was having a valid driving licence. Therefore, there was nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1 and, therefore, it would be just and reasonable to hold that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. As per the judgment of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 149 not only Government employees but those who are self employed or who have regular income and are working at fixed wages would be entitled to an addition of 50% to the actual income while computing future prospects. Admittedly, the deceased was only aged 22 years at the time of accident and he had bright future. Had he not met with the accident, he would have certainly earned much more income. In the above circumstances, 50% i.e., Rs. 1,500/- is added to the regular income of Rs. 3,000/- and income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 4,500/-. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, 50% has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. If 50% is deducted towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of earnings would be Rs. 2,250/- and the annual loss of income would be Rs. 27,000/- (Rs. 2,250/- x 12). Since the deceased is unmarried, the age of the mother of the deceased is taken into consideration for the purpose of multiplier. The mother of the deceased is aged about 42 years at the time of accident. As per the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased is 14'. Therefore, the total loss of earnings would come to Rs. 3,78,000/- (Rs. 27,000/- x 14). In addition to that, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased is 14'. Therefore, the total loss of earnings would come to Rs. 3,78,000/- (Rs. 27,000/- x 14). In addition to that, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in case between Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and Others (Civil Appeal No. 5510 of 2012 dated 03-05-2013), the mother is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the total compensation would be Rs. 5,03,000/-. It is also settled law that irrespective of the claim made by the claimants, the Tribunal should award just and reasonable compensation as per Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, . 22. In view of the same, the cross-objections are allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs. 5,03,000/-, out of which the 1st claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,75,000/-, the 2nd claimant is entitled to Rs. 2,75,000 and the 3rd claimant is entitled to Rs. 53,000/-. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. No order as to costs.