ORDER :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the owner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988') questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 31.10.2014 passed by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 21/2012, whereby, the Tribunal, while exonerating the insurance company from its liability, has awarded a total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,31,000/-with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. While, the Claimant has filed the cross-appeal seeking the enhancement of amount of compensation. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Tribunal.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 28.08.2011, at about 5-6 p.m., deceased Prahlad was travelling along with others on a Tractor attached with its Trolley bearing Registration No.C.G.-15/AE/0625 and C.G.-15/AE/0622 respectively for the purposes of performing the procession ceremony of Lord Krishna. At the relevant time, it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Parmeshwar Singh @ Kunder, owing to which, it turned turtle and said Prahlad got injured badly and succumbed to the injuries during his treatment, while one of his friends also died, giving rise to the institution of the claim petition by his father under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. According to him, the deceased was a student and was engaged in selling newspapers and used to earn Rs.2,000/-per month and claimed compensation of Rs.15,30,000/-under various heads.

3. While denying the claim, it was pleaded by Non-applicants No. 2 & 3, i.e., driver and owner of the vehicle in question that since it was being used by its driver, who was holding the valid and effective driving license, therefore, in case of any liability being fastened, the same could be indemnified by Non-applicant No.1 Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. While, the insurer of it took a defence that the vehicle in question, which was insured for the agricultural purposes was, however, being used other than its purposes as a commercial vehicle by carrying passengers on hire.

As such, no liability could be fastened upon it.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the alleged offending vehicle resulting into the sad demise of the claimant's son Prahlad, who was 11 years old at the relevant point of time. It held further that the vehicle in question, i.e., tractor attached with its trolley, which was insured for agricultural purposes, was being used for carrying children for the purposes of performing procession ceremony of Lord Krishna in violation of the insurance policy. In consequence, while exonerating the insurance company from its liability and that by considering the notional income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.36,000/-per annum, awarded total amount of compensation along with its interest as mentioned herein above.

5. According to Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/owner, the finding of the Tribunal holding that the vehicle in question, insured for agricultural purposes, was being used in violation of the policy and thereby exonerating the insurance company from its liability, is apparently contrary to law. While referring to the provision prescribed under sub-rule (7) of Rule 97 of Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1994'), it is contended that since the alleged offending vehicle was being used at that particular time for the religious purpose, therefore, it cannot be held to be used in violation of the policy and, has p