JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. M.F.A. No. 8023/2012, M.F.A. Crob. No. 159/2014 and M.F.A. Crob. No. 63/2015 are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 24.3.2012 passed in M.V.C. No. 7/2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Itinerary at Shikaripura. 2. M.F.A. No. 8023/2012 is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the judgment and award of the Tribunal directing the insurer to pay the compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the insured. The main ground urged in the appeal is that the appellant had taken the defence before the Tribunal that the accident took place not due to the negligence of respondent No. 5 herein. It is also the defence of the appellant that respondent No. 5 was not possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has answered issue No. 2 in favour of the appellant, since R.W.2 who is respondent No. 5 categorically admitted that he was not having the driving licence to drive the power tiller and trolley. It is also contended that respondent No. 4 is the owner of power tiller and one Sri B. Basavarajappa is the owner of the trolley. The owner and insurer of the trolley are not made as parties before the Tribunal. R.W.1 in the cross-examination categorically admitted that insurance premium has not been paid for the said trolley. Respondent No. 4 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy because she entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not having valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal also fastened the liability on the insured respondent No. 4, but wrongly directed the Insurance Company i.e., the appellant herein to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured and it requires interference and the liability of the Insurance Company has to be exonerated. 3. Cross-objectors in M.F.A. Crob. No. 159/2014 are the claimants. They contend that the Tribunal has erroneously taken the income as Rs.3,500/- though the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- since she was having a tea shop at Shikaripura and the compensation awarded is inadequate. The other contention of the claimants is that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insured and directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured. The other contention of the claimants is that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insured and directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured. The Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. The vehicle involved in the accident is the power tiller and the driver was having the driving licence to drive the said vehicle, since the driver was having LMV driving licence and as per the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the said vehicle is below 7,900 kgs. and the same is not a heavy vehicle. It is a medium goods vehicle. The order directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the insured is illegal and unjust. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous. 4. Cross-Objector in M.F.A. Crob. No. 63/2015 is the owner. In the cross-objection, it is contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured i.e., the cross-objector herein. The driver was having the licence to drive the heavy vehicle and also LMV and the said driving licence was not marked before the Tribunal. But the driving licence was valid as on the date of the accident. The driving licence was issued on 7.2.1994 and there was a periodical renewal of the driving licence from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2000, from 13.5.2003 to 12.5.2006 and again it was renewed from 26.4.2007 to 25.4.2010. The accident took place on 28.3.2009 and on the date of accident there was a valid driving licence. The RC book is produced before the Court as Ex.R.1 and class of vehicle is shown as power tiller and type of the body is shown as open which is a diesel vehicle and its unladen weight is 277 kgs. Therefore, admittedly, the vehicle in question is a LMV and there is no deficiency in driving the vehicle by the driver holding authorizing to drive the LMV. Hence, the Insurance Company is alone liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed this Court to set aside the judgment and award and exonerate the liability of the insured and direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 5. Cross-objector in M.F.A. Crob. Hence, the Insurance Company is alone liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed this Court to set aside the judgment and award and exonerate the liability of the insured and direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 5. Cross-objector in M.F.A. Crob. No. 63/2015 has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC praying this Court to permit the cross-objector to produce the additional evidence i.e., driving licence. In support of this application, an affidavit is sworn to that she has been examined before the Tribunal asR.W.1 and the driver was examined as R.W.2. R.W.2 has not produced the driving licence as it was the part of the record in the criminal proceedings. The cross-objector felt that since the driving licence is a part of the record in the criminal proceedings, it need not be marked separately in MVC proceedings. But due to that inadvertent mistake, the driving licence was not separately marked. However, the driver was having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. Hence, she may be permitted to produce the additional evidence as the same is very essential to render the justice. Along with the application, notarized copy of the driving licence is produced. 6. This application is resisted by the appellant in M.F.A. No. 8023/2012 by filing the objections. It is contended that the cross-objector in M.F.A. Crob. No. 63/2015 cannot be permitted to produce the said document. R.W.2 driver who has been examined, categorically admitted that he has not obtained the driving licence for power tiller. R.W.2 was working under cross-objector. Cross-objector has to produce the original driving licence and the same has not been produced before the Tribunal. The reasons assigned in the affidavit is not correct. The contention of the appellant in M.F.A. No. 8023/2012 is that the driver was not having the valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident and the Tribunal rightly answered the same. If the cross-objector wants to produce the driving licence, she can produce the original driving licence before the Tribunal and prove the same. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respective cross-objectors in their arguments have reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal and cross-objections. If the cross-objector wants to produce the driving licence, she can produce the original driving licence before the Tribunal and prove the same. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respective cross-objectors in their arguments have reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal and cross-objections. The learned counsel for the appellant in M.F.A. No. 8023/2012 mainly contended that admittedly there is no driving licence to drive the offending vehicle i.e., power tiller and trolley. It is also contended that power tiller was standing in the name of Smt. Anasuyamma and the trolley was standing in the name of one Sri B. Basavarajappa. The owner and the insurer of the said trolley were not made parties to the proceedings. The very order of the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured is incorrect. 8. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the judgment of Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in the case of Gopalakrishnan and Another vs. Rumugham and Another, 2014 ACJ 290 . Referring this judgment, the counsel would contend that the power tiller is a motor vehicle and driving licence is mandatory under Section 3 for driving it and the Insurance Company is exempted from liability. 9. The learned counsel also relied upon the unreported judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kusum vs. Kamal Kumar Soni decided on 17.8.2007 and brought to my notice paragraph Nos.10 and 15 of the judgment and would contend that power tiller was also covered by the definition of 'motor cycle' as defined under Section 2(27) of the Act, which reads as under: "2(27) 'motor cycle' means a two-wheeled motor vehicle, inclusive of any detachable side-car having an extra wheel, attached to the motor vehicle." Hence, it was a vehicle or motor vehicle and was fully covered under the aforesaid definition. 10. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Salat Mary, 2006 ACJ 675 and contended that in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the claimant cannot file cross-objection for enhancement. 11. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Salat Mary, 2006 ACJ 675 and contended that in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the claimant cannot file cross-objection for enhancement. 11. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and brought to my notice that once it is held that the insurer has been able to establish its defence, the Tribunal or the Court cannot direct the insurance companies to pay the awarded amount to the claimant and in turn recover the same from the owner and the driver of the vehicle when the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence. 12. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court, Kalaburagi Bench in the case of Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chandramma, 2017 ACJ 1455 . Relying upon this judgment the counsel contended that the vehicle involved in the accident is power tiller and trolley and in terms of this judgment tractor and trailer both require to be separately insured and only if both tractor and trailer are insured, the Insurance Company would be liable to indemnify the owner against claims arising out of the use of tractor-trailer. If tractor alone was insured, fastening the liability on the Insurance Company is erroneous. In the case on hand also power tiller was insured and trolley was not insured. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured, even though it is held that owner is responsible. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the owner in M.F.A. Crob. No. 63/2015 vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in directing the Insurance Company to pay and recover the same from the insured instead of fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Zaharulnisha, (2008) 12 SCC 385 and brought to my notice paragraph No. 18 of the judgment. In the said paragraph the Apex Court discussed with regard to the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Zaharulnisha, (2008) 12 SCC 385 and brought to my notice paragraph No. 18 of the judgment. In the said paragraph the Apex Court discussed with regard to the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Swaran Singh wherein it is held that when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle, he can drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that he must have driving licence both for car and jeep separately. 14. The learned counsel for cross-objectors in M.F.A. Crob. No. 159/2014 vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income as Rs.3,500/- and has not awarded just and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal has erroneously fastened the liability on the insured instead of the Insurance Company and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation and also to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company. 15. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the cross-objectors, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the appellant has made out a ground to set aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the insured and whether this Court can exonerate the liability of the Insurance Company? (ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insured and directing the Insurance Company to pay and recover from the insured? (iii) Whether the cross-objector in M.F.A. Crob. No. 63/2015 has made out a ground to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC permitting her to adduce the evidence by producing the additional document of driving licence? (iv) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation as contended in M.F.A. Crob. No. 159/2014? (v) What order? Point No. (iii) 16. (iv) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation as contended in M.F.A. Crob. No. 159/2014? (v) What order? Point No. (iii) 16. First I would like to take up the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC since the cross-objector i.e., the owner has sought the permission to produce the original driving licence of her driver on the ground that the driving licence was not marked before the Tribunal since the same was produced in the criminal proceedings. Hence, the same is very much necessary to decide the issue involved between the parties with regard to liability. 17. The Insurance Company has filed the objections contending that admittedly there was no driving licence to drive the power tiller and trolley and the same is admitted in the cross-examination. When such being the case, there is no need to entertain the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. At the most, the cross-objector can produce the same before the Tribunal. Hence, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the said document is necessary, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the matter within a stipulated time. 18. Having considered the arguments of both the learned counsel for cross-objector and the learned counsel for the appellant and also the reasons assigned in the affidavit as well as in the objection statement, it is clear that though the driver has been examined before the Tribunal as R.W.2, the driving licence of the driver has not been produced and marked. It is important to note that the driver who has been examined asR.W.2 before the Tribunal categorically admitted that he was not having the driving licence to drive the power tiller and trolley, but he claims that no such separate licence is required. It is important to note that the Insurance Company counsel himself has suggested to him that he obtained the driving licence from Mangaluru RTO and the same is admitted. He further admits that he obtained the driving licence on 7.2.1994 and further admits that at the first instance he obtained the driving licence for LMV and thereafter he obtained the driving licence for heavy vehicle. When the counsel for the Insurance Company himself suggested that he was having LMV driving licence, now he cannot dispute the said fact. He further admits that he obtained the driving licence on 7.2.1994 and further admits that at the first instance he obtained the driving licence for LMV and thereafter he obtained the driving licence for heavy vehicle. When the counsel for the Insurance Company himself suggested that he was having LMV driving licence, now he cannot dispute the said fact. The document produced before this Court is also with regard to the fact that the driver was having LMV driving licence. As on the date of the accident i.e., 28.3.2009, the LMV driving licence was also valid since the same was renewed in 2007 and the same is valid till 2010. When the answers are elicited from the mouth of R.W.2 with regard to his possessing the driving licence to drive the heavy vehicle and LMV and the notarized copy of the driving licence which is produced before the Court also shows that it is valid from 26.4.2007 to 25.4.2010, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the driver was having valid driving licence of LMV as on the date of the accident. Hence, I do not find any reasons to remand the matter once again to decide the issue with regard to the validity of the document, since the appellant itself did not dispute the document. The document is produced before this Court and in view of the grounds urged in the application, I am of the opinion that the cross-objector has made out the ground to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, but there is no need to remand the matter since the appellant has not disputed that he was not having LMV driving licence. Hence, I answer point No. (iii) as affirmative. Point Nos. (i) and (ii): 19. Now the question before this Court is whether the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insured and further directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the insured. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident is a power tiller and trolley. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the tiller is insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The dispute is only with regard to the fact that the driver was not having valid driving licence to drive the specific type of vehicle of power tiller. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident is a power tiller and trolley. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the tiller is insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The dispute is only with regard to the fact that the driver was not having valid driving licence to drive the specific type of vehicle of power tiller. Hence, the Insurance Company contend that the Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 20. The other ground is that the trolley was not insured and the owner and the insurer of the trolley were not made parties to the proceedings. The type of vehicle involved in the accident is also specially classified and there is no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Gopalakrishanan (supra) in coming to the conclusion that power tiller is also a motor vehicle. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kusum (supra) discussed with regard to the nature of the vehicle. These two judgments are applicable to the case on hand with regard to the specific type of vehicle. But the contention of the Insurance Company that the Company is not liable to pay the compensation in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandramma (supra) that both tractor and trailer were not insured and hence the Company is not liable to pay the compensation, cannot be accepted. The factual aspects of that judgment is distinct from the factual aspects of the present case. In the case of Chandramma (supra), the fact is that the victim was traveling in the tractor and trailer as an employee and in the case on hand, the victim is not traveling and the victim was running a tea shop. The driver of the power tiller went and dashed against the said tea stall and caused the injuries and the injured succumbed to the injuries. The victim is a third party and so also in the case on hand, though the trolley is attached to the power tiller, the criminal Court records and evidence of the witnesses clearly reveals that power tiller went and dashed the tea shop and also the victim. Hence, the facts and circumstances of the cases are distinguishable. The victim is a third party and so also in the case on hand, though the trolley is attached to the power tiller, the criminal Court records and evidence of the witnesses clearly reveals that power tiller went and dashed the tea shop and also the victim. Hence, the facts and circumstances of the cases are distinguishable. None of the witnesses have spoken before the Court that the trolley came in contact with the victim and only power tiller dashed against her. When the facts and circumstances are different, the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandramma (supra) is not applicable. 21. Now the question before this Court is with regard to whether the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insured and further directing the insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured. No doubt there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the driver was not having the valid and effective driving licence to drive the power tiller. The learned counsel for the cross-objector i.e., the insured, brought to my notice the document Ex.R.1. On perusal of Ex.R.1, RC stands in the name of the cross-objector/insured and the unladen weight is shown as 277 kgs. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the cross-objector that if the vehicle's unladen weight is below 7,900 kgs., the vehicle becomes LMV. In the case on hand, the driver is having the LMV driving licence and the same is not disputed. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company himself suggested in the cross-examination that the driver has obtained the driving licence for LMV in the year 1994 and subsequently obtained the driving licence for heavy vehicle. In view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental insurance company Ltd. AIR 2017 SC 3668 the liability has to be fastened on the Insurance Company and not on the insured only on the ground that the driver was not having the driving licence to drive the non-transport vehicle. No doubt power tiller and trolley becomes goods vehicle, but when the Apex Court has held that if the driver is having LMV driving licence, the liability has to be fastened on the Insurance Company and not on the insured. No doubt power tiller and trolley becomes goods vehicle, but when the Apex Court has held that if the driver is having LMV driving licence, the liability has to be fastened on the Insurance Company and not on the insured. Hence, the contention of the Insurance Company as contended in the appeal cannot be accepted. The contention of the owner has to be accepted as contended in the cross-objection. Hence, I answer point (i) as negative and point (ii) as affirmative. Point No. (iv): 22. The main contention of the cross-objectors/claimants in M.F.A. Crob. No. 159/2014 is that the deceased was running a tea stall and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But no documents are produced before the Court with regard to her income. However, it is clear that she was running the tea stall and the accident took place when she was in the tea stall and succumbed to the injuries. In the absence of any documentary proof, the Court has to take the notional income. Admittedly, the accident took place in the year 2009 and the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income as Rs.3,500/- per month. Hence, it is required to take the notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month. 23. The Tribunal rightly discussed with regard to the age of the deceased. Though it is mentioned in the post mortem report and as claimed by the claimants that the deceased was aged 37 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal rightly considered that when the age of claimant No. 2 is 22 years, the mother's age cannot be 37 years and rightly taken the age of the deceased between 41 to 45 years and adopted 14 multiplier. Hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court with regard to taking the multiplier as 14. 24. It is noticed that the claimants are husband and two children of the deceased. The claimants have not produced any document to show that claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the dependents of the deceased. Though, it is suggested to P.W.1 in the cross-examination that he was working, but he says that he was not having any employment and the said contention also cannot be accepted. The claimants have not produced any document to show that claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the dependents of the deceased. Though, it is suggested to P.W.1 in the cross-examination that he was working, but he says that he was not having any employment and the said contention also cannot be accepted. The claimant No. 2 is the son who is aged 22 years, but in the cross-examination of P.W.1, he says that he was studying but no document is placed that he was pursuing his studies. However, it is elicited that both claimants Nos.2 and 3 have discontinued their education. When such being the case, when the claimant No. 2 is a major, both claimant Nos.1 and 2 cannot be held as dependents. However, the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3rd considering all of them as dependents. But claimant No. 3 is a daughter who was aged about 17 years as on the date of the claim petition. Hence, only claimant No. 3 is entitled for compensation in view of judgment of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 . Hence, this Court has to deduct 50% of the income towards her personal expenses instead of 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal. 25. However, the Tribunal did not consider the future prospects while awarding the compensation. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , in case the deceased was working in a unorganized sector and was between the age of 40 to 50 years, 25% of the actual income has to be added towards future prospectus. Hence, I have added 25% towards future prospects. 26. Now the "loss of dependency" is calculated as under: Monthly income Rs. 5,000/- Add: 25% towards Future prospects Rs. 1,250/- Rs. 6,250/- Less: 50% towards Personal expenses Rs. 3,125/- Rs. 3,125/- Loss of dependency (Rs. 3,125 x 12 x 14) Rs. 5,25,000/- 27. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.25,000/- under the conventional heads. In total it amounts to Rs.1,15,000/- and the same is on the higher side. 5,000/- Add: 25% towards Future prospects Rs. 1,250/- Rs. 6,250/- Less: 50% towards Personal expenses Rs. 3,125/- Rs. 3,125/- Loss of dependency (Rs. 3,125 x 12 x 14) Rs. 5,25,000/- 27. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.25,000/- under the conventional heads. In total it amounts to Rs.1,15,000/- and the same is on the higher side. In view of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , an amount of Rs.70,000/- has to be awarded under other conventional heads and the same has to be taken as Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.1,15,000/-. 28. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.16,274/- under the head medical expenses considering the bills produced. Hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the same. 29. In all, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.6,11,274/-. 30. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER: (i) M.F.A. No. 8023/2012 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (ii) M.F.A. Crob. No. 159/2014 filed by the claimants is allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified granting compensation of Rs.6,11,274/- as against Rs.5,23,274/- with interest at 6% per annum. (iii) M.F.A. Crob. No. 63/2015 filed by the insured is allowed. The amount deposited by the cross-objector in M.F.A. Crob. No. 63/2015 shall be refunded to her. (iv) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation within eight weeks from today. (v) The amount, if any in deposit and the lower Court records shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith.