The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the insurance company in cases of breach of policy conditions is not automatic. The insurer must prove willful infringement or violation of policy by the insured, and the breach must be fundamental to the cause of the accident to avoid liability.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.09.2008, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 9/2006.

3. The appellant was the respondent no. 3-insurance company; the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the claimants and respondents no. 4, 5 were respondents no. 1 and 2 who were respectively the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said claim petition.

4. The claimants had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for grant of total compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- on account of death of the husband of the claimant no. 1 and the father of the claimants no. 2 and 3.

5. Case of the claimants, in short, was as follows:-

The husband of claimant no.1 and father of claimants no. 2 and 3, namely, Arvind Poll, aged 47 years, was proceeding from Parra to Mapusa by riding his scooter bearing no. GA-01-L-8478 on 12.09.2005 at around 12:15 hours. When he reached Canca, next to Bodgeshwar temple, respondent no. 1 while riding Honda Dio scooter bearing no. GA-03-B-9037 suddenly took a turn to proceed to Canca and dashed to the scooter of said Arvind due to which he sustained grievous injuries which resulted into his death on 13.09.2005. The deceased was working as lineman and was earning Rs. 7,537/-per month. The claimants were totally dependent on the income of the deceased.

6. The respondents no. 1 and 2 filed their written statement denying the case of the claimants. They stated that their liability, if any, was covered by the insurance policy issued by respondent no. 3. They stated that the accident was caused due to the fault of the deceased himself who rode the scooter in fast speed and in rash and negligent manner. They stated that the accident had taken place at Canca, but the spot of the accident was much after the Bodgeshwar temple.

7. The respondent no.3, in its written statement, admitted that the vehicle of the respondent no. 2 was covered under the insurance policy issued by it at the time of the accident, but claimed that there was breach of condition since, respondent no. 1 was not duly licensed and was riding the vehicle in violation of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules. The respondent no. 1 was not accompanied by any duly licensed person at the time of the accident. The respondent no. 3 also claimed that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself.

8. Accordingly, issues were framed. The claimants examined claimant no. 1, Mrs. Ashwita Poll as AW-1; Shri Ramesh Kalangutkar, Head Constable attached to Mapusa police station as AW2; Shri Nelson Iype, Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Division XIII as AW-3; and Shri V. P. Singh Akela, Assistant Engineer, Electricity Department, Kadamba Plateau, as AW-4. The respondent no. 1 examined herself as RW-1. The respondent no. 3 examined its Technical Manager, Shri Shripad Nigudkar, as RW-2.

9. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned M.A.C.T. held that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the respondent no. 1 in riding the vehicle bearing no. GA-03-B-9037. The learned M.A.C.T. further held that the claimants were entitled to receive, jointly and severally, from respondents no. 2 and 3 an amount of Rs. 5,35,000/-together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. The amount awarded under Section 140 of the M.V. Act was held to be inclusive of the amount awarded. The claimants and respondents no. 1 and 2 have not challenged the above Judgment and award. However, respondent no. 3-insurance company has challenged the same.

10. The main ground for challenge is that there was a breach of policy condition and therefore, the respondent no. 3 was not liable to indemnify