1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 29.4.2006 passed by I MACT, Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 102/2005 whereby the claim case filed by appellants was allowed in part and a sum of Rs. 2,97,500/- has been awarded and respondent No. 3 was exonerated on the ground that the offending vehicle was insured for agricultural purpose only, the present appeal is filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that appellants filed a claim case before the learned tribunal alleging that deceased/Dilip Singh was travelling in a tractor attached with trolley bearing registration No. MP-14/A/5641 on 20.7.2004 along with the goods for its safety. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. Further case of the appellants was that by the time when the offending tractor reached to the premises of Krishi Upaj Mandi at Mandsaur, at that time because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 the offending trolley was turtled down with the result Dilip Singh died on the spot. In the claim case compensation was claimed from the respondents. The claim case was contested by respondent No. 3 on the ground that offending tractor was insured with respondent No. 3 for agricultural purpose and trolley was not insured. It was alleged that since the deceased/Dilip Singh was a fare paying passenger and the vehicle was not being used for agricultural purpose, therefore, respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned tribunal allowed the claim case and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,97,500/- for which break-up is as under :

towards loss of dependency Rs. 2,88,000/-

towards funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/-

towards loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/-

towards loss of estate Rs. 2,500/-

Total : Rs. 2,97,500/-

3. Learned tribunal further observed that since offending vehicle was insured for agricultural purpose, therefore, respondent No. 3 stands exonerated. Being aggrieved by the award passed by learned tribunal, the present appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side which ought to have been assessed as Rs. 100/- per day as deceased was having agricultural land and was also barber by profession. It is submitted that multiplier of 16 has been applied while looking to the age of deceased and also the age of appellant No. 1 multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. It is submitted that deduction towards personal expenses is on higher side and on other heads also the amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that since the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle for safety of goods, therefore, there was no justification in exonerating the respondent No. 3.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the amount awarded by learned tribunal is just and proper. So far as exoneration of respondent No. 3 is concerned, it is submitted that deceased was travelling in a trolley as fare paying passenger which was not insured with respondent No. 3, therefore, learned tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondent No. 3.

6. From perusal of record, it appears that income of deceased has been assessed @ Rs. 75/- per day. Deceased was barber and also agriculturist. It appears that income of deceased ought to have been assessed @ Rs. 100/- per day. So far as application of multiplier of 16 is concerned, it appears that looking to the age of appellant No. 1 the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. In the facts and circumstances of the case, appellants are entitled for the following amount :

towards loss of dependency Rs. 4,08,000/-

towards funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/-

towards loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/-

towards loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/-

towards loss of estate Rs. 5,000/-

Total : Rs. 4,35,000/-

7. So far as liability of respondent No. 3/insurance company is concerned,