The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the insurer to prove any willful breach of the insurance policy by the insured in order to contest liability for compensation.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral):

This appeal is directed against the award, dated 21.2.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.33 of 2010, titled Kamla Devi and others versus Gehar Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,75,800/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants (respondents No.1 to 6 herein) and against the respondents, and the insurer/appellant was saddled with the liability to satisfy the award, (for short, the impugned award).

2. The claimants, the driver and the owner/insured have not questioned the impugned award, thus has attained finality so far as it relates to them. Only the insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error while saddling the insurance company with the liability.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned award deserves to be upheld for the following reasons.

Brief facts:

4. The claimants, being the victims of a vehicular accident, invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.20.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. It is averred in the Claim Petition that on 18.8.2010, the deceased was traveling in the tractor bearing registration No.HP 34A 0715, which was being driven by its driver, namely, Kundan rashly and negligently. When the tractor reached at a place Chong, the driver could not control the offending tractor and to avoid skidding, the deceased alighted from the said tractor to place a stone under the tyre of the tractor and in the process the deceased was got crushed.

5. The owner/insured, the driver and the insurer/appellant resisted the Claim Petition by filing replies.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal:

“1. Whether Sh.Chiterdev died in the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount, the petitioners are entitled for compensation? OPP

3. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to make the payment of compensation as indemnifier? OPP

4. Whether the vehicle was driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-3

5. Whether the respondent No.2 was not having an effective and valid driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR-3

6. Relief.”

7. In order to prove their claim, the claimants examined PW-1 Kamla Devi (claimant), PW-2 Rajesh Bodh, PW-3 L.C. Bhuvneshwari and PW-4 Ghansham, while the respondents examined Kundan Lal (driver) as RW-1, Diler Singh and Ashok Kumar as RW-2 and RW-3, respectively. The claimants have also placed on record documents Exts.PW-1/A, PW-1/B, PW-2/A, PW-3/A and PW-4/A, i.e. affidavit, death certificate, postmortem report, affidavit of Neel Chand and copy of FIR, respectively. The respondents have placed on record Ext.RW-1/A (affidavit of Kundan Lal) and Exts.R-1 to R-7 i.e. driving licence, registration certificate, insurance, goods tax receipts and goods carriage permit, respectively.

8. The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence, held that the claimants have proved by leading oral as well as documentary evidence that the driver of the offending tractor had driven the tractor rashly and negligently and caused the accident. Thus, issue No.1 framed in this regard was decided in favour of the claimants. The said issue is not in dispute. However, I have gone through the record and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly decided Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants.

9. Before I deal with Issue No.2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No.3, 4 and 5 at the first instance. Onus to prove issues No.4 and 5 was on the insurer/appellant. To prove Issue No.5, the insurer has not led