The defense of the Insurance Company is confined to the grounds enumerated under section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the need for cogent and succinct evidence to establish the breach of Insurance Policy on the part of the insured.

1. The appellant – United India Insurance Company Ltd. By resorting to remedy under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) preferred the present appeal, agitating validity and propriety of the judgment and award dated 20-03-2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded (for short “Tribunal”), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.51 of 2000 imposing monetary liability to pay compensation to the original petitioners/claimants.

2. Factual matrix of the appeal in brief is that, on 05-12-1999 the deceased Sitaram Ramji Idole was travelling in the vehicle mini passenger bus bearing registration No. MH-26-B/481 from Nanded to Bhjavaninagar, Kandhar. The driver of the mini passenger bus was very negligent and rash while driving the bus. When the vehicle came in the vicinity of Vishnupuri village, the driver lost control on the wheels of the vehicle and get the vehicle plunged at the Babhul tree aside the road. Thereafter, the vehicle mini passenger bus turned turtle on the left side of the road. The deceased Sitaram received fatal injury and died on the spot itself. The information of the accident was passed on to the concerned Police of Nanded Police Station. Crime No. 237 of 1999 under sections 304-A, 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) came to be registered. The police arrived at the spot, drawn spot panchnama, inquest panchnama on the dead body of deceased Sitaram. Thereafter, corpse of the deceased was referred to post-mortem to ascertain the exact cause of death. The medical experts opined that the deceased Sitaram died due to head injury following depressed fracture of skull vault with subdural hemorrhage. The claimants being widow and children of the deceased Sitaram blamed the driver of mini passenger bus for the death of their family member. Therefore, they filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Act of 1988 for compensation.

3. Despite service of notice, respondent No. 1-owner of mini passenger bus did not secure his presence before the Tribunal. He remained absent in the proceedings. The Tribunal passed order to proceed exparte against the owner of offending vehicle. However, respondent No. 2-appellant-Insurance Company appeared in the proceeding and raised the objection. It has been contended that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. There were 60 to 70 passengers travelling in the bus at the relevant time. According to appellant-Insurance Company there was breach of condition of Insurance Policy and the appellant – Insurance Company could not be held responsible to indemnify the insured in this case. Hence, no liability would be fastened on the Insurance Company.

4. After considering rival submissions, the Tribunal framed requisite issues to determine the controversy on merit. In order to support the claim, claimant Kusum, widow of the deceased stepped into the witness box and adduced her evidence on oath. The claimants also produced voluminous documents comprising Police record, post – mortem report, salary certificate of the deceased etc. on record. The claimants also examined P.W-2- Vasant Gulabrao Salunke, Administrator of the CIDCO to prove the salary certificate of the deceased produced on record. However, respondent-Insurance Company did not prefer to adduce any evidence nor produced any document in support of its claim. The Tribunal appreciated the entire circumstances on record and arrived at the conclusion that the death of deceased Sitaram Idole was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of mini passenger bus. The Tribunal concluded that owner and insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,90,000/- with interest to the claimants. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed impugned judgment and award, which is subject matter of the present appeal.

5. In support of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal did not app