The court emphasized that adequate compensation must account for future earnings and clarified insurer liability based on insurance policy specifics.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the owner under S.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 Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 21 of 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 per cent 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 enhancement of the 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 28.8.2011, at about 56 p.m., deceased Prahlad was travelling along with others on a tractor attached with its trolley bearing registration No. CG 15 - AE 0625 and CG 15 - AE 0622 respectively for the purpose 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 alias 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 S.166 of the Act, 1988. According to him, the deceased was a student and was engaged in selling newspaper 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 - applicant Nos. 2 and 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 licence, therefore, in case of any liability being fastened, the same could be indemnified by non - applicant No. 1 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. While the insurer of it took a defence that the vehicle in question, which was insured for agricultural purposes, was, however, being used for a purpose other than its purpose 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 in 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 purpose of performing procession ceremony of Lord Krishna in violation of the insurance policy. In consequence, while exonerating the insurance company from its liability and by considering the notional income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 36,000 per annum, the Tribunal awarded total amount of compensation along with interest as mentioned hereinabove.

5. According to Mr. 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 prescribe