JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 16.4.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bayana (Bharatpur), in M.C.A. Case No.373/2007 (775/2006), allowing the claim of claimant-respondents to the extent of Rs. 2,42,000/- along with interest @ 6%. 2. The brief facts noticed are that it was claimed on behalf of the claimants that on 27.1.2006 one Samina @ Samnam was going with her sister's mother-in-law Kalia, in a tractor-trailer bearing no.RJ05 RA 1079. Though initially they are said to be in the tractor-trailer, but got down of it later-on. When they got down on the road, suddenly the tractor driver, Prem Singh, negligently drove the vehicle loosing control over it and consequent thereto Samina got hit by the tractor and received severe/grievous injuries and was then carried to the Govt. Hospital, Bharatpur, where the doctors declared her dead. It was, therefore, claimed that on account of negligence of the driver of tractor-trailer, the accident took place. FIR was lodged, and after investigation police filed charge-sheet against the driver under Section 304A IPC. The Tribunal, after analysing the material on record, allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 2,42,000/-, which has been assailed herein. 3. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company contended that the tractor-trailer was meant only for carrying agricultural produce, and was not for the purpose to carry passengers as it was claimed that both, the deceased as well as Kalia, were travelling on the tractor, therefore, the policy conditions of the Insurance Company for which the tractor was insured, had been breached and violated. He further contended that the claim has been lodged in connivance with the owner/driver of the tractor and the Tribunal on assumption and presumptions, has come to the conclusion that the deceased and Kalia were standing on the road when the tractor hit Samina, rather the claim of the appellant is that while they were travelling/sitting in the tractor as passengers, on account of her own negligence, deceased fell down and got seriously injured and lateron died of her own. He further contended that this fact is clearly mentioned in the FIR as well that the deceased was run over by the tractor while she was stepping down from the tractor. He further contended that this fact is clearly mentioned in the FIR as well that the deceased was run over by the tractor while she was stepping down from the tractor. He further contended that the driver of the tractor, for ulterior motive took amount from the deceased and Kalia and, therefore, it became a commercial vehicle and thus violated the conditions of the policy. He also contended that the quantum awarded is highly excessive. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal on assumption and presumptions has allowed the claim which was not required to be allowed and the award of the Tribunal is perverse. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brij Mohan & Others 2007 (3) T.A.C. 20 (S.C.) , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati & Others 2007 (2) T.A.C. 8 (S.C.) , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma & Others 2004 (3) T.A.C. 577 (S.C.) , and of this court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Vimlesh & Others MACD 2012 (1) (Raj.) 515 , United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Kaushlya Bai & Others 2008 R.A.R. 169 (Raj.) , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pawan Tikkiwal & Others 2007 (4) T.A.C. 77 (Raj.) , Kailashi Devi & Others v. Srinarain & Others 2006 R.A.R. 361 (Raj.) , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rani & Others 2006 ACJ 1224 , and Mala Ram v. Roopa Ram & Others 2004 R.A.R 543 (Raj.) . 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the award of the Tribunal is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that the deceased was on the road when the incident happened, and the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion. He further contended that all the evidence do prove that the deceased was on the road when the vehicle hit Samina on account of negligent driving by the driver of the tractor, who abruptly started the tractor and lost control over it and thus, the finding of the Tribunal is quite justified. He further contended that the statements of eye-witnesses do prove that the deceased was on the road when she was hit by the tractor. 5. He further contended that the statements of eye-witnesses do prove that the deceased was on the road when she was hit by the tractor. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the record so also the impugned award. In my view though the findings and the statements certainly go to prove that both the ladies (deceased and Kalia) may be travelling in the tractor at the time when the tractor started from its place, but a definite finding of fact has been recorded by the Tribunal, based on the evidence on record, is that when the accident did happen, both the ladies were standing on the road, and driver, Prem Singh, abruptly started the vehicle, and lost control of the vehicle and consequent thereto the tractor hit the deceased causing injuries which proved fatal. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the statements of Kalia, who was with the deceased at the time when the tractor hit the deceased, and she has categorically stated that both of them had got down of the tractor and thereafter the tractor hit the deceased on account of negligence of the driver, and it is only after they got down the tractor that hit Samina as the driver started the vehicle abruptly. Even the witness who appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company, namely Dharmendra Sharma, could not controvert this fact by leading any other evidence that the deceased died while she was travelling in the tractor or fell down on account of her own negligence and consequent thereto she died. The said witness also came to the conclusion that if the two ladies were on the road after having got down from the tractor, even then as per third-party insurance they were liable to make good the claim and once the finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that at the time of accident both, the deceased and Kalia were on road and thereafter the tractor hit the deceased, the claim of the appellant, in my view has been found to be unfounded by the Tribunal to which I also concur after analysing the material and evidence led on record. 6. 6. Though the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellant do support his contention that if the persons have been found travelling in the tractor then certainly the claim is not allowable as it is in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy. However, the definite finding on record is that the deceased and Kalia were on the road and on account of negligence of the driver of tractor the deceased got hit by the tractor and got injured and thereafter she died on account of the injuries received. 7. I have also taken into consideration the contents of the claim petition which has been highlighted by the counsel for the appellant, specially para 28, which according to him is version of the claimants that the deceased got injured of her own mistake/negligence and fell down, however, on a perusal of para 28 and after perusing the contents of the same, it is the version of claimants that "on 27.1.2006 deceased and Kalia went to Veermpura village on Swaraj tractor no. RJ 05 RA 1079. Trailer was also fitted to the said tractor. At Veermpura deceased and Kalia were standing at one side of the road but suddenly on account of the negligence of driver, the tractor started and Samina @ Samnam was hit by the tractor consequent thereto she received injuries and died in the Govt. Hospital, Bharatpur. This accident was caused on account of negligence of the driver of tractor. Had the driver been careful, he would not have put the tractor on gear abruptly and would not have turned the steering." Thus, from the version it is quite clear as reproduced herein above, that the deceased and Kalia got down of the tractor and were standing on the roadside and on account of negligence as observed herein above of the driver, Prem Singh, who lost control of the vehicle, the tractor which abruptly started and hit the deceased on account of which she died. In my view I do not find any admission of the claimants that they themselves had stated that the deceased died after falling from the running tractor of her own negligence. 8. Having perused the above, accordingly, in my view the claim has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal, and I do not find any perversity in the award impugned so as to call for any interference by this court. 8. Having perused the above, accordingly, in my view the claim has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal, and I do not find any perversity in the award impugned so as to call for any interference by this court. 9. The amount allowed by the Tribunal, in my view is also fair and reasonable, inasmuch as the Tribunal has adopted only notional income of Rs. 15000/- per annum, though it was claimed that she was earning Rs. 4500/- per month, the multiplier applied is in accordance with the age of the deceased, the amount allowed of Rs. 2000/- on account of funeral expenses and last rites, cannot be said to unreasonable or excessive by any standards. 10. Accordingly, the quantum of claim is just and proper. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******