The main legal point established in the judgment is that the breach of the policy condition must be the immediate cause of the accident, and the insurer must establish that the owner was guilty of willful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance in order to avoid liability.

U.V. BAKRE, J.

1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Marshall, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 2 and 3. The other respondents, though duly served after admission of the appeal, are absent.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 17/04/2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa (M.A.C.T. for short) in Claim Petition No. 32 of 2008. The appellant (owner of the Maruti Van No. GA-01/V-4448) was the respondent no. 2 in the said Claim Petition. The respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the claimants. Respondent no. 4 Insurance Company was the respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 5 was the respondent no.1 (driver of Maruti Van No. GA-01/V-4448) in the said Claim Petition. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Claim Petition.

3. The claimants had filed the said petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, for short) for total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of death of Shri Vijendra V. Joshi, the son of the claimants no. 1 and 2 and brother of claimant no. 3, in a motor vehicular accident.

4. Case of the claimants was that on 22/03/2008 at 16.00 hours at Cotula Saligao, Parra Road at Bardez, Goa, the deceased was the occupant of Maruti Van bearing No. GA-01/V-4448 driven by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, due to which it suddenly skidded, since the respondent no. 1 lost control on the said vehicle thereby causing death of its occupant Shri Vijendra Joshi.

5. The respondent no. 1, in his written statement, denied the case of the claimants and stated that while he was driving the Maruti Van, the scooterist suddenly came in the middle of the road and in order to save him, he had to apply brakes, due to which the vehicle driven by him skidded and he lost control over the same.

6. The respondent no. 2 also denied the case of the claimants and stated that his Maruti Van was adequately covered under the Insurance Policy at the time of the accident and that it was driven by respondent no. 1, who was a licenced driver holding valid light motor transport vehicle driving licence, which was valid with effect from 04/03/2005 upto 24/04/2011. In the additional written statement, the respondent no. 2 further stated that he had entrusted his vehicle in the hands of a driver who was not only validly authorised, but was also well experience and carried a proper and effective driving licence at the time he was put in control of the vehicle.

7. Respondent no. 3, in its written statement, alleged that the deceased cannot be said to be "third party" or "any person" under Section 147 of M. V. Act and was not covered under the Insurance Policy, due to which the respondent no. 3 was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The respondent no. 3 further stated that the respondent no. 1 drove the said vehicle without a valid and effective driving licence and he was not holding valid badge to drive the Taxi. It was thus alleged that there was breach of policy condition and, therefore, the respondent no. 3 was not liable to compensate the claimants.

8. Accordingly, issues were framed by the learned M.A.C.T. The claimants examined Shri Vitesh Joshi, the claimant no. 3 as AW1, Shri Santosh Naik, the employer of the deceased, as AW2 and P.S.I. Narayan Chimulkar, the investigating officer in the said accident case, as AW3. On the other hand, the respondent no. 2 examined himself as RW1, one Shri Ravi Pilarnkar as RW2 and Shri Sachin Kandolkar(respondent no. 1) as RW3. The respondent no. 3 examined Shri Nandkishor Arolkar, the Assistant Director of Transport as RW4.

9. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned M.A.C.T. held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. GA-01/V-4448 by respondent no. 1 and that the deceased, who was one of the occupants, died as a result of