JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. (Oral) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 26th August, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Chamba (H.P.) (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. No. 36/08/07, titled as Smt. Veena and others versus Smt. Urmila Devi and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,25,000/with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its deposition came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants, driver and owner insured of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Appellant insurer has questioned the impugned award only on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability for the reason that risk of the deceased was not covered in terms of the insurance policy. 4. I have gone through the impugned award read with the record and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling the appellant insurer with liability for the following reasons: 5. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was a tractor, bearing registration No. HP48 A9305. The registration certificate is on the record as Ext. RW1/B, in terms of which the seating capacity of the offending vehicle is only 'one'. 6. The perusal of the insurance policy, which is on the record as Ext. RW1/C, does also disclose that only the risk of the driver was covered and the risk of the labourer or any other person was not covered. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner insured and the driver of the offending vehicle was asked to show how the insurer can be saddled with liability when the risk is not covered. 8. In reply, he argued that they have taken specific plea before the Tribunal that the deceased was not traveling in the offending vehicle as labourer at the time of the accident. 9. But, the findings of the Tribunal in paras 11 and 19 of the impugned award are not supporting them. Moreover, the owner insured and the driver of the offending vehicle has not questioned the said findings. 10. 9. But, the findings of the Tribunal in paras 11 and 19 of the impugned award are not supporting them. Moreover, the owner insured and the driver of the offending vehicle has not questioned the said findings. 10. The Tribunal, in paras 11 and 19 of the impugned award has made discussion and held that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident as the employee of the owner insured, which is also pleaded and proved by the claimants. 11. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in deciding issues No. 5 to 7 and coming to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was not being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the risk of the deceased was covered. 12. Having glance of the above discussions, it is held that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy at the relevant point of time and the owner insured has committed a willful breach. 13. Keeping in view the fact that the claimants are third party, the insurer is directed to satisfy the award with a right to recover the same from the owner insured. 14. Viewed thus, the impugned award is modified and the appeal is disposed of, as indicated hereinabove. 15. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 16. The appellant insurer is at liberty to lay a motion before the Tribunal for recovery. 17. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.