The insurer's statutory defense under section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is limited to the grounds enumerated in the Act, and the burden of proof lies with the insurer to establish the breach of conditions with reliable evidence.

1. Heard. Admit. With consent of the learned counsel for parties, the matters are heard at the time of admission.

2. This bunch of first appeals came to be filed on behalf of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. assailing the findings expressed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shrirampur District Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), in the proceedings of Motor Accident Claim Petitions initiated by the respective claimants seeking compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”). The legal issues involved in all these appeals are pertains to statutory defence as envisaged under section 149(2)(a) of the Act of 1988 for breach of condition of Insurance Policy to repudiate the liability of indemnify the insured. Therefore, all these appeals are dealt with by this common judgment sans adverting to individuals facts of each and every matter.

3. It is not in dispute that the appellant – Insurance Company was the insurer of vehicle – Trax – cruiser jeep bearing registration No. MH- 17/AJ-1527 involved in the accident occurred on 14-06-2012. It has been contended that all the respective claimants, their relatives and friends etc., had been to Goa on excursion. Unfortunately, while return journey, the vehicle jeep met with an accident on Radhanagari – Kolhapur Highway within the vicinity of Khindivarvade village. It has been alleged that the driver of jeep was very rash and negligent while driving the vehicle. When he was negotiating the curve in the Ghat section, he lost the control on the wheels and vehicle turned turtle. It plunged into the 20” deep ditch aside the road. The information of the mishap was passed on to the Police of Radhanagri Police Station. Accordingly, Police arrived at the spot. They drawn the spot panchnama. The occupants of the jeep who sustained injuries were escorted to the hospital at Kolhapur. However, the illfated Passenger namely Jagannath Prabhakar Dharmadhikari breathed his last on the spot of incident itself. Police drawn the inquest panchnama on his dead body and referred it for post-mortem. The medical experts conducted the post-mortem and opined that the deceased Jagannath succumbed to the injuries caused to vital organs following vehicular accident. The respondents – claimants blamed the driver for rash and negligent driving resulting into alleged accident. Therefore, the claimants taking recourse of remedy under section 166 of the Act of 1988 preferred the respective claim petition for compensation.

4. The respondents i.e. owner and driver as well as insurer of the offending vehicle caused their appearance before the Tribunal and resisted the claim. The appellant Insurance Company filed the written statement (Exhibit-30) and raised the objection that the driver of the vehicle jeep was not holding the valid driving licence. The insured vehicle was registered as a private vehicle and policy was issued under Private Car Package. But, the vehicle was used for commercial purpose. The use of vehicle for commercial purpose was in contravention of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. Moreover, the vehicle was carrying the passenger more than the permitted capacity. Therefore, the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured.

5. The learned member of the Tribunal framed the requisite issues and proceeded to determine the matter in controversy on merit. The respondent claimants examined themselves on oath. They have also produced the voluminous documents on record comprising police record, driving licence of the jeep driver, R.T.O documents of offending vehicle, medical documents etc. The respondent – Insurance Company adduced the evidence of its office personnel Shri Anil Ravindra Yawalkar to traverse the claim propounded on behalf of claimants. The R.T.O. Personnel was also examined in the MACP No. 133 of 2013. The Tribunal has considered the entire facts and circumstances brought on record and pleased to allow the claim petition