ORDER : Arun Monga, J. 1. The Insurance Company has preferred the above titled two appeals seeking quashing of a common judgment and award dated 10.04.2018 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sujangarh, District Churu, whereby, in Claim Case No. 33/2013 and Claim Case No. 34/2013, compensation of Rs.8,70,000/- and Rs. 9,20,000/-, respectively was awarded to the claimants therein. Vide this common order and judgment, both the appeals are being disposed of. 2. Brief facts first. On 06.04.2013, the deceased Pukhraj and Vikam were traveling from Sujangarh to Salasar on a motorcycle bearing registration number RJ-44-SA-0306. The motorcycle was being driven by the deceased Pukhraj. At around 10:00 p.m., when they reached near Bhivsar Pyau on the Sujangarh–Salasar road, a tractor bearing registration number RJ-10-RA-3386 came from the opposite direction (from Salasar side). The tractor was being driven by Respondent No.1, Sukharam, allegedly at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The tractor suddenly came to the wrong side and hit the motorcycle. As a result, Pukhraj died on the spot, and Vikam died later during treatment at Kalyan Hospital, Sikar. 2.1 At the time of the accident, deceased Pukhraj and Vikam were 21 and 23 years old, respectively. Both were working as mechanics at M/s Mamta Motors, Bidasar, and as per claimants were earning a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- each. Compensation amounts of Rs. 88,95,000/- for Pukhraj and Rs.85,35,000/- for Vikam were sought by their legal representatives. 3. The tractor was/is registered in the name of Respondent No.2 - Smt. Parmadevi, and insured with Respondent No.3 - the insurance company. 4. Learned Tribunal framed five issues, English translation of the same is as below:- “(i) Whether the accident occurred on 06.04.2013 at approximately 10:30 PM near Bhiwesar Piau on the Sujangarh– Salasar road in Kasba Sujangarh due to the first respondent- Sukharam(driver), driving tractor No. RJ-10 RA-3386 at a high speed, negligently and carelessly, thereby colliding with the motorcycle of the deceased Chainaram, resulting in the death of Vikram and Pukhraj who were riding on the said motorcycle? (onus-applicants/claimants) (ii) Whether the said vehicle was being driven by the first respondent (driver) under the employment, control, and direction of the second respondent (Owner), for their benefit and interest, at the time of the accident? (onus-applicants/claimants) (iii) Whether the objections raised by the non-applicants in their reply are acceptable? (onus-applicants/claimants) (ii) Whether the said vehicle was being driven by the first respondent (driver) under the employment, control, and direction of the second respondent (Owner), for their benefit and interest, at the time of the accident? (onus-applicants/claimants) (iii) Whether the objections raised by the non-applicants in their reply are acceptable? if yes, then are the non-applicants not liable to pay compensation? (onus-respondents/Non-claimants) (iv) Whether the applicant-claimants-Bhanwarlal & another are entitled to receive ?88,95,000/- and the applicants-Maniram & another ?85,35,000/- as compensation, along with interest, jointly and severally from the non-applicants, and if so, from whom and to what extent? (onus-applicants/claimants) (V) Relief.” 5. Based on the respective evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the vehicle involved in the accident was a tractor attached with a trolley, being used on a public road. Such use qualifies it as a goods- carrying commercial vehicle. Therefore, the driver must possess a driving licence of the “Transport Vehicle” category. He submits that the learned tribunal committed an error in holding the appellant- insurer liable under issue no. 4, disregarding the fact that the driver did not possess a valid and effective licence to drive a transport vehicle as required under the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant is thus protected from liability under Section 149(2)(a) (ii) of the Act, and the award should be set aside against the insurer. 6.1. He further submits that the appellant specifically pleaded that there was no liability to indemnify the insured, since the driver held a licence only for a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), valid for 20 years, whereas a transport licence requires special endorsement and is valid only for three years. This defense was substantiated through cogent evidence, including the testimony of NAW-1 Rajesh Kumar Mishra, the insurance policy (Ex. NA-1), and driving licence verification (Ex. NA-2), which confirmed that the driver held an LMV licence only. 6.2. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act sets out specific conditions for obtaining a transport licence, including minimum age and prior holding of an LMV licence. As the driver did not meet these qualifications, the tribunal’s findings are perverse and unsustainable in law and must be set aside. 6.3. He contends that the insured tractor was covered under a “Farmer’s Package Policy” for agricultural use only. As the driver did not meet these qualifications, the tribunal’s findings are perverse and unsustainable in law and must be set aside. 6.3. He contends that the insured tractor was covered under a “Farmer’s Package Policy” for agricultural use only. Its use with a trolley for commercial purposes on a public road violated the insurance contract. This was pleaded and supported by oral and documentary evidence, yet the tribunal failed to consider it, necessitating reversal of the impugned award. 6.4. He would also contend that, even otherwise, the accident occurred in the middle of a 20-ft-wide road as shown in Exhibits 3 and 4, indicating possible contributory negligence of the motorcyclist. Furthermore, the deceased motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet, a fact confirmed by the postmortem report, which showed head injuries as the cause of death. This violation supports the case for contributory negligence, which the tribunal failed to consider. 6.5. The Motor Transport Officer’s (MTO) report indicated both vehicles were at high speeds, yet the tribunal did not apply doctrine of res ipsa loquitur which would have resulted in shared liability. 6.6. He also argues that the tribunal erroneously assessed the monthly income of the deceased as ?5,000/-, whereas minimum wages in 2013 were ?3,822/-. As the income of the deceased was not proven, only minimum wages should have been considered. 7. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondents. 8. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the case file, I shall now proceed to deal with the merits and demerits thereof and render my opinion based on the discussion and reasoning contained hereafter. 9. First and foremost, perusal of the impugned the award. Would reveal that Bhanwarlal (A.W.1) and Maniram (A.W.2), reiterated case facts and submitted documents (Exhibits 1–10, including FIR, charge sheet, site map, MTO report, postmortem reports, and Pukhraj’s income certificate). Amarchand (A.W.3), an eyewitness, testified that the tractor, driven rashly, veered to the wrong side, hitting the motorcycle. Despite cross-examination, no discrepancies discredited Amarchand’s account. The FIR (Exhibit- 1), lodged promptly at 8:15 AM on 07.04.2013, confirmed the accident’s occurrence. The site map (Exhibit-3) and condition (Exhibit-4) showed the collision occurred on the motorcycle’s correct side, indicating the tractor’s fault. The MTO report (Exhibit- 5) identified the tractor as a red Massey 1035. Postmortem reports confirmed deaths due to accident injuries. The FIR (Exhibit- 1), lodged promptly at 8:15 AM on 07.04.2013, confirmed the accident’s occurrence. The site map (Exhibit-3) and condition (Exhibit-4) showed the collision occurred on the motorcycle’s correct side, indicating the tractor’s fault. The MTO report (Exhibit- 5) identified the tractor as a red Massey 1035. Postmortem reports confirmed deaths due to accident injuries. Parmadevi admitted ownership (Exhibit-7), and Sukharam’s valid LMV license (Exhibit-8) and the tractor’s insurance (Exhibit-10) were proven. The claimants thus proved Sukharam’s negligent driving caused the fatal collision. Issues 1 and 2 were decided in favor of the claimants. 9.1. Relying on Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.: (2017) 14 SCC 663 , the tribunal held that a tractor-trolley is a light motor vehicle, not requiring a transport endorsement, making Sukharam’s LMV license valid. The insurer failed to prove non-agricultural use, and cited precedents were inapplicable as they involved different facts (e.g., passengers in trollies). The objection was rejected, and Issue 3 was thus decided against the insurer. 9.2. Claimants sought ?88,95,000 for Pukhraj and ?85,35,000 for Vikram, alleging both earned ?15,000/ per month as mechanics. However, no authentic evidence (e.g., Exhibit-11 lacked credibility) was adduced which supported the claimed ?15,000/- per month income. A notional income of ?5,000/- per month was thus adopted based on minimum wages. 10. I am of the view that the award rendered by the learned Tribunal/Trial court is well-reasoned and supported by cogent legal and factual grounds. Let us see how. 11. The appellant-insurer contention is that the tractor, insured under a “Farmer’s Package Policy” for agricultural use, was being used commercially with a trolley on a public road, violating the policy terms. However, there was no evidence to prove the tractor was used for non-agricultural or commercial purposes. The tribunal’s findings, supported by the lack of contrary evidence from the insurer, established that the tractor’s use did not violate the policy. It rightly emphasized that the burden to prove such a breach lies with the insurer, which they failed to discharge. 11.1. Qua validity of Driver’s License, the driver, Sukharam, concededly held a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license. Yet again, a tractor with a trolley is classified as a light motor vehicle, not requiring a separate transport endorsement. It rightly emphasized that the burden to prove such a breach lies with the insurer, which they failed to discharge. 11.1. Qua validity of Driver’s License, the driver, Sukharam, concededly held a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license. Yet again, a tractor with a trolley is classified as a light motor vehicle, not requiring a separate transport endorsement. The rather over emphatic argument, that the licence holder, who was driving the vehicle had his licence in the category of LMV and therefore, was not an authorised driver of the tractor, is being noticed only to be rejected in view of the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rambha Devi, 2024(1) SCC 818 11.2. As regards the credibility of eyewitness Amarchand (AW-3), alleging he was a planted witness due to contradictions in his testimony and his relation to the deceased, I find no merit in this argument. Amarchand (AW-3) was named in the FIR lodged promptly after the incident. Thus hold that he was not a credible witness as he was planted by the claimants is also completely misconceived. At the very first instance when the FIR was lodged he was named therein by the claimants. Merely on the presumption which is being drawn erroneously by the learned counsel, based on certain contradiction in its statement, it cannot be a conclusive finding that he is planted witness, as is being canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants. The learned trial court has rightly gone through the entire deposition and found the said objection to be unbelievable. It rightly held that minor contradictions do not negate his eyewitness account, especially given the corroborative evidence like the FIR, site map, and MTO report. 11.3. The insurer claimed contributory negligence by the deceased motorcyclist, Pukhraj, stating that he was not wearing a helmet. It is also urged that the accident’s location in the middle of a 20-ft-wide road and the MTO report suggesting high speeds by both vehicles indicated shared liability. Per contra, the tribunal’s findings, upheld by the court, were based on evidence (site map, Exhibit-3, and site condition, Exhibit-4) showing the tractor veered to the wrong side, causing a head-on collision. The MTO report and eyewitness testimony confirmed the tractor’s rash and negligent driving. The Trial court found no evidence supporting contributory negligence by the motorcyclist. Per contra, the tribunal’s findings, upheld by the court, were based on evidence (site map, Exhibit-3, and site condition, Exhibit-4) showing the tractor veered to the wrong side, causing a head-on collision. The MTO report and eyewitness testimony confirmed the tractor’s rash and negligent driving. The Trial court found no evidence supporting contributory negligence by the motorcyclist. The absence of a helmet, while noted, either was cause of accident and in any case, did not alter the primary liability of the tractor driver. There is no evidence that head injuries were solely attributable to this omission. I find no fault with that view taken by the learned tribunal. 12. In totality of circumstances, both the appeals are sans any merit. 13. I may also add here that, learned counsel for the appellant– Insurance Company wrongly relies on Subhash Chand Vs. Bassi & Ors. : 2014 RAR. 29 (Raj.) & Surendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. Narayan Lal & Anr. : 2012 RAR 41 (Raj.). A perusal of the said precedents, in fact, reflects that the shoe is on the other foot. The aforesaid judgments are being completely misread by learned counsel for the appellant, inasmuch as, it is held therein that once it has come on record that the trolley attached with the tractor was being used for transportation for non-agriculture purposes, the same vitiates the policy. In the present case, there is nothing on record to reflect that the trolly was being used for non-agriculture purposes and / or any commercial transport. 14. Furthermore, as regards the argument that there is certain clerical error in the calculation of the award, once again, if it were indeed clerical, as is being argued, it was open to the appellant – Insurance Company to have taken appropriate steps before the Tribunal in accordance with law. 15. No other point was argued. In the premise, no grounds to interfere are made out, either on the appreciation of the evidence or even otherwise in absence of any irregularities either on facts or law. 16. In the parting, I may hasten to add that notional income ought to have been higher than the minimum wages. Minimum wages cannot be a straight jacket ironclad formula and is merely an indicator for the Tribunal to determine the income. 16. In the parting, I may hasten to add that notional income ought to have been higher than the minimum wages. Minimum wages cannot be a straight jacket ironclad formula and is merely an indicator for the Tribunal to determine the income. Be that as it may, claimants are since not in appeal and this Court shall refrain to put the insurance company to the consequences thereof. 17. Dismissed. 18. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.