JUDGMENT
R.D. Shukla, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.1.1987 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua, passed in Claim Case No. 31 of 1985 whereby the claimants-appellants have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 35,000/- with a further direction that the same would be paid by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. The brief history of the case is that Narsingh, the husband of the claimant-appellant No. 1 and father of claimant-appellant Nos. 2 to 8 and son of the claimant-appellant Nos. 9 and 10, was bringing maize-straw in a motor tractor No. MBI 8687. This motor tractor was owned by the respondent No. 2, the predecessor of respondent Nos. 2(1) to 2(8) and was driven by respondent No. 1. The motor tractor was insured with respondent No. 3 at the relevant time.
3. Narsingh had engaged this tractor for bringing the maize-straw from the threshing ground of Narsingh. He was also sitting on the trolley for maintaining the balance of straw loaded on the trolley. Narsingh was thrown out of the trolley and fell beneath the rear wheel of the trolley and died on the spot.
4. The claimants filed this petition with the assertions that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 1 and that he was the bread-earner of the family. The claimants have sustained loss. As such they claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation.
5. The claim was resisted by the respondents; first, on the ground of rash and negligent driving and secondly, on the ground that the tractor was being used for the purpose other than it was insured for. Respondent No. 3, insurance company, asserted that the respondent No. 2 has committed breach of the conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to make payment.
6. Learned Tribunal has accepted the contention of the claimants so far as the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle is concerned and has awarded Rs. 35,000 as above, but has further found that the tractor was being used for the purpose other than it was insured for and, therefore, the whole responsibility of making payment of the compensation has been fixed on the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 [predecessor of respondent Nos. 2(1) to 2(8)]-
7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation on the lower side. The dependency has also not been properly assessed.
8. The second contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that carrying the load of maize-straw was an agricultural work and, therefore, the insurance company ought to have been made liable for making payment of compensation.
9. As against it learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the owner of the tractor was not using the tractor for the purpose of agriculture but was using it for hire and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for making the payment of compensation.
10. This court was taken to the evidence on record. Looking to the evidence of Chhagan Singh, P.W. 2, Malkibai, P.W. 3 and Mohan Singh, P.W. 4, it is evident that Narsingh was working as labourer. The accident occurred in the year 1985. The average income of an ordinary good healthy labourer taking into consideration 50 per cent working days would come to about Rs. 400/- to Rs. 450/- per month. Looking to the size of the family, Narsingh must have been spending at least 2/3rd for the maintenance of his family and, therefore, the dependency of the family would come to nearly Rs. 300/- p.m.
11. Narsingh was aged about 47 years, as found by the learned Tribunal but the medical report shows his age to be about 40 years. Taking the average and the age of Malkibai who was aged about 45 years at the time of examination, the age of Narsingh can safely be assessed to be about 45 years. Looking to the present-day longevity of the citizens of the country it can be presumed that he would have survived up to the age of 65 and could have worked at least for a few years after gaining the age of 60 years. In such a situation a multiplier of 10 will have to be applied. Thus, the loss to the family would come to Rs. 36,000/-
12. Malkibai has lost her husband at the age of 45. There is no chance of her remarriage. She is having nearly seven children. Thus, she is further entitled for a compensation for the loss of consortium to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-. Apart from that, other claimants are also entitled for loss of love and affection and the compensation for the same is assessed at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- each which comes to Rs. 7,000/-. Thus, the compensation under the head of loss of consortium, love and affection would be about Rs. 12,000/- with no payment to claimant Nos. 9 and 10 on that count.
13. The next point that arises for determination in the case is as to whether the insurance company is liable to make good the loss. It is not in dispute that the motor tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and carrying the straw load even on hire would be a work for agricultural purposes. Nowadays after coming into force of the ceiling law in the country an owner of the tractor cannot sustain tractor only by working for himself, he can use that tractor for cultivating the land of others and for assisting in the agricultural operations of other cultivators and that would also be deemed to be an agricultural purpose.
14. If a tractor was being used for agricultural purposes in assistance even for hire of other cultivators, the insurance company cannot be allowed to say that the same was being used not for agricultural purpose.
15. Deceased Narsingh had gone along with the tractor for putting the load of maize-straw on the trolley. His presence in the trolley was necessary for loading and unloading the maize-straw and, therefore, it will be further deemed that Narsingh was working in the aid of agricultural purposes.
16. In the opinion of this court, therefore, despite the fact that a tractor was taken on hire by Narsingh for carrying the maize-straw it will be deemed that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes and insurance company would be held responsible for making payment of the compensation which otherwise would be liable to be paid by the owner of the tractor.
17. In view of the discussion above, the appeal succeeds. The claimants-appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 48,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation of the same. It is further made clear that the Tribunal while disbursing the amount shall take into consideration the guidelines issued by the Apex Court of this country in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC).
18. It is further held that the respondents should be jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation and since the tractor was insured with respondent No. 3, insurance company, at the time of accident and, therefore, insurance company shall be liable to make payment of compensation. The respondents shall further pay the costs of the appellants. Counsel’s fee Rs. 400/-.