The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the vehicle owner to claim indemnification from the insurance company based on the payment of additional premium and the interpretation of the term 'breach' in the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Since all these sixteen appeals arise out of the judgment dated January 10, 2003 of the learned Single Judge, they are taken up together for disposal.

2. In the impugned judgment learned Single Judge held that amount of compensation will first be paid to the claimants by the insurance company and therefore the insurance company could recover the said amount from the vehicle owner. Being aggrieved with this Finding, both vehicle owner and insurance company have preferred instant special appeals.

3. Contextual facts depict that on August 3, 1988 Truck No. RNV 9844 met with an accident as a result of which three persons died and seventeen others sustained injuries. As many as twenty claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal out of which five were dismissed. In remaining fifteen claim petitions compensation was awarded to the claimants. The vehicle owner preferred four appeals before the learned Single Judge against the award made in claimpetitionsNo. 109/1988, 111/1988, 113/1998 and 126/1988, on the ground that liability of paying compensation was illegally fastened on the vehicle owner. The claimants seeking enhancement of compensation filed four other appeals before the learned Single Judge. Disposing the appeals of vehicle owner, learned Single Judge although directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants but liberty was granted to insurance company to recover the said amount from the vehicle owner. in other four appeals, preferred by the claimants, the amount of compensation was stepped up from Rs. 65,000/-to Rs. 7 1,000/-. The aforesaid finding of learned Single Judge have been assailed before us in the instant special appeals by the vehicle owner and the Insurance Company.

4. A look at the material on record reveals that on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal found the driver of vehicle responsible for causing the accident as a result of which three persons died and seventeen others sustained injuries, but it was held that Insurance Company was not liable to indemniir the insured in four claim petitions bearing Nos. 109, 111, 113 and 126, since the three deceased and one injured Bhawani were neither travelling in the vehicle as labourers nor did they make payment of fare. It was therefore directed that the vehicle owner was liable to pay compensation awarded in these four petitions. Having pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the record we find that Insurance Company could not prove that breach of the terms of Insurance Policy (Ex.A-1) on the part of vehicle owner was willful. It is also borne out that additional premium in the sum of Rs. 45 0/-was paid by the vehicle owner which included Rs. 150/-to cover unlimited personal injury sustained by third party.

5. Interpreting the expression ‘breach’ occurring in Section 9(2)(b) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Pass) vs. P.Sesh Reddy (1), indicated in para 12 thus:

The expression ‘breach’ occurring in Section 96(2)(b) means infringement or violation of a promise or obligation. As such the insured was guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise. The insurer has also to satisir the Tribunal or the Court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was willful.”

6. Asper Motor Tariffs Schedule of Premiums, the indemnity granted to the insured for the personal injury caused to third party shall be unlimited if additional premium in the sum of Rs. 150/-is paid in respect of goods carrying vehicle.

7. Since additional premium to cover third party risk was paid by the vehicle owner and the Insurance Company could not prove that breach of insurance police, on the part of vehicle owner, was wilful, the vehicl owner is entitled to claim indemnification from the Insurance Company. Case of Mallawwa vs. Oriental Insurance Co. (2), on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, is