An insurance company is exonerated from liability when policy conditions, specifically regarding the insured's authorized use of a vehicle, are violated.

1. Correctness and sustainability of the impugned award dated 7.2.2014 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 12 of 2012 by Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh is put to challenge in this appeal.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 19.2.2012, Birbal Sahu was standing on the roadside for returning to his home after completion of his masonry work of laying slab on a under - construction building. At that relevant time, one tractor bearing registration No. CG 10 - D 6764 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') driven by respondent No. 3 / non - applicant No. 1 dashed Birbal Sahu, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries on his person and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The accident was reported to concerned police station, based on which crime was registered against respondent No. 3 / non - applicant No. 1 who is the driver - cum - owner of the offending vehicle.

3. The claimants - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are parents of the deceased Birbal Sahu filed claim application before the competent Claims Tribunal mentioning therein that on the date of accident, deceased Birbal Sahu was aged about 19 years and earning Rs. 250 per day from his engagement as mason. Claimants - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have claimed Rs. 19,45,000 as compensation on account of accidental death of Birbal Sahu.

4. Non - applicant No. 1 / respondent No. 3 submitted his reply to the claim application and pleaded that the claimants were not dependent upon the deceased Birbal Sahu, deceased was not working as mason and the accident took place on account of negligence on the part of the deceased Birbal Sahu himself. Non - applicant No. 1 / respondent No. 3 was acquitted from the charges levelled against him, he was possessing valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with non - applicant No. 2 / appellant insurance company.

5. Non - applicant No. 2 / appellant insurance company submitted its reply to the claim application and denied all the adverse pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that non - applicant No. 1 / respondent No. 3 - driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and the offending vehicle was being used for the purpose other than agricultural purpose, deceased Birbal Sahu was not working as mason and there was violation of conditions of insurance policy and pleaded that non - applicant No. 2 - insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

6. During the course of inquiry before the learned Claims Tribunal, the claimants - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have examined respondent No. 1 - Kashi Ram Sahu as AW 1, Jawaharlal as AW 2. Appellant / non - applicant No. 2 - insurance company also examined one Shubhayu Majumdar as NAW 1 and respondent No. 3 / non - applicant No. 1 examined himself as NAW 2 and one Chandram as NAW 3.

7. The learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties arrived at a finding that the claimants - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were dependent on the deceased Birbal Sahu; the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by respondent No. 3 / non - applicant No. 1 resulting in death of deceased Birbal Sahu. The learned Claims Tribunal further recorded that there was no violation of conditions of insurance policy and while fixing the liability jointly and severally upon non - applicant Nos. 1 and 2 (driver - cum - owner and insurer of offending vehicle) respectively, awarded Rs. 6,58,000 as compensation, wh