HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3197 of 2011 Date: December 07, 2011 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Kurnool. … Appellant/ Respondent No.2 And 1. V.C. Aruna & 5 others … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3197 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the Award passed in M.V.O.P. No.360 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. 2. A claim for Rs.25.00 lakhs towards compensation was claimed consequent on the death of the deceased V. Niranjan Reddy. On 15.4.2003 while the deceased was proceeding on his scooter, he is said to have been hit by a tractor-trailer bearing No.AP 21 V 2062, as a result of which he died. The deceased is having Ac.30.00 of agricultural lands. He is also said to be a Homeopathic doctor. The first petitioner is wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are children and petitioners 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased and all of them are depending on the deceased. 3. The first respondent is the owner of the tractor and the second respondent is the National Insurance Company Co., Ltd. The appellant herein is disputing the income and also the cause of incident. It is also further pleaded that the driver of the tractor was not having valid licence and consequently the insurance company is not liable to pay the said amount. 4. After considering the material on record, the lower Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.9,63,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. 5. The point for consideration is whether the amount of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable and the appellant is not liable to pay the said amount? 6. Point: So far as the nature of incident and cause of death of the deceased are concerned, there is not of much dispute. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that while computing the income of the deceased the lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the income tax returns of the deceased and the monthly income was taken as Rs.6,250/- and even though the income tax returns does not show any agricultural income the Tribunal has taken the income as Rs.18,000/- per annum and therefore according to him this amount has to be excluded. Evidently, the agricultural income might not have been shown in the income tax returns, since it is not a taxable income. The Court is only to consider whether the deceased has got agricultural lands. Ex.A-8 is the pattadar passbooks in the name of the deceased to an extent of Ac.3.89 cents and Ac.5.65 cents and apart from it the other pattadar passbook is in the name of P.W.1 to an extent of Ac.20.30 ½ cents of dry land. Therefore assuming that the wife of the deceased was having agricultural lands substantially, the fact remains that the deceased is also having about 9 ½ acres of land from the pattadar passbook in his own name. 7. In view of the above circumstances, when it cannot be disputed that the lands are cultivable and income fetching, the income of the deceased cannot be said to be nil. Therefore, the lower Tribunal has taken a reasonable approach and fixed the agricultural income even from the own lands of the deceased. It has also rightly applied multiplier after deducting 1/3rd amount. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is the specific plea of the appellant that the driver of the tractor was not having valid licence and the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 supported by Ex.B-2 clearly establishes the same. But the Tribunal has not considered this aspect. According to him, the driver of the vehicle was having only licence to drive a non-transport vehicle. In this case, the vehicle involved is a transport vehicle and consequently there is no liability to the insurance company. It cannot be disputed that so far as the deceased is concerned he is a third party with reference to the tractor and trailer. The law has been settled in the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Swaran Singh[1] wherein it was held that if the driver of the vehicle was having one type of licence, it cannot be said that the insurance company is to be exonerated from liability so far as the third parties are concerned. In this case, the above judgment of the Supreme Court applies and there is also no material to show that the owner of the vehicle has knowingly entrusted the vehicle to the driver. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the insurance company cannot avoid the liability on the ground that there is violation of the conditions of the policy. The insurance company is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner for the violation. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the interest granted by the lower Tribunal at 9% per annum is on higher side. Taking into consideration the settled law, the interest is reduced to 7.5%. 10. With the above modification the appeal is allowed. No costs. _____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Date: December 07, 2011. BSB [1] (2004) 3 SCC 297