The burden of proof on the insurer to establish a breach of policy conditions rests heavily on them when contesting claims, particularly regarding the driver's qualifications and potential negligence.

JUDGMENT :

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

1. All these appeals arise out of one accident by which claimant’s father and mother died, for which two independent claims were made and since facts in issue are common, they are being decided by way of common judgment.

2. Parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the present case in a nutshell are as follows:

a) Claimant is adopted son of late P.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy and late P.Parvathi, who succumbed on account of accident. The deceased, on 09.11.2013, while proceeding on motorcycle, school van bearing No.AP 16TC 5088 belonging to 2^nd respondent dashed them, resulting in P.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy succumbing on spot and his wife Smt.Parvathi, sustained severe and grievous injuries, after being shifted to private hospital at Tanuku, died while undergoing treatment. The incident was reported to police, who registered Crime No.126 of 2013 against driver of the van under Section 304-A of IPC. The police, after conducting investigation, laid charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle. Since both rider and pillion rider of motorcycle died and were left behind with their adopted son, he instituted M.V.O.P. Nos.36/2014 and 37/2014 under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of death of Sri P.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy and Smt.P.Parvathi, respectively. As seen from the respective claims, the compensation is claimed as under:

b) Initially claim was laid by adopted son as a minor being represented by Sri P.Brahameswara Rao and also 2^nd petitioner, biological mother, later as he became major, Tribunal discharged the guardian by orders dated 06.07.2018. Further, the 2^nd petitioner, biological mother of 1^st claimant/petitioner died during pendency of the proceedings. The claim was contested by all three respondents i.e., driver of offending vehicle, owner of vehicle and also insurer. 1^st respondent driver of vehicle denied that accident occurred on account of his rash and negligence and even denied that he was driver of said vehicle at the time of accident, rather was only a supervisor. The 2^nd respondent also filed written statement contending that 1^st respondent never drove the offending vehicle and that police have falsely implicated him to be driver of said vehicle, besides disputing that deceased Satyanarayana Murthy was a pensioner and his wife was not having any income at relevant point of time.

c) The 3^rd respondent – Insurer also filed written statement denying the manner in which accident occurred and that the 1^st respondent was responsible in causing the accident on account of rash and negligence, further that the accident occurred on account of the rider of motorcycle losing balance and hitting the van, therefore, attributed self-negligence and was also equally responsible for cause of the accident. Further, it was also pleaded that driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license, therefore, the same amounted to violation of policy conditions, therefore, no liability could be fastened. Further, 3^rd respondent also disputed the age, income and occupation of both deceased.

d) In support of respective claims, claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. Further, he examined P.Ws.2 to 4 to testify that he was given in adoption to deceased couple. On the other hand, the Insurer has examine