The onus to prove breach of policy conditions is on the insurer, and the scope of coverage under the insurance policy for personal accidental risk is determined by the terms of the contract of insurance.

JUDGMENT

Satyen Vaidya, J. - This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 19.12.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Chamba, H.P. (for short 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 72/12/11 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed claim petition No.72/12/11 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act') on account of death of Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Dharam Pal in the capacity of his legal representatives.

3. It was stated in the claim petition that the deceased was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and he himself was driving the vehicle. The vehicle was insured with the respondent.

4. Respondent contested the petition on the grounds that the petition was not maintainable. Insured had intentionally made breaches of the terms and conditions of the policy. The petition under Section 166 of the Act was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. The driver-cum-owner i.e. the deceased Sunil Kumar was not possessing valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident and in case some license was produced, the same was bogus and fake having not been issued by the competent authority. The vehicle at the time of the accident was being plied in violation of the Act and Rules framed thereunder besides other grounds. It was, however, averred in alternative without admitting the liability that the petitioners were entitled for a limited amount of Rs.2,00,000/- only as per the terms, limits and conditions of the insurance policy and that also before the special forum.

5. In rejoinder, the petitioners controverted the objections raised by the respondent in generality.

6. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below framed the following issues:

1. Whether deceased Sunil Kumar had died on 10.11.2020 on account of use of vehicle No.HP-01C-0116 (Taxi Alto) at about 9.15 P.M. near Lakar Mandi, Dalhousie? OPP

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

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR

4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and terms and conditions of Insurance Policy as alleged? OPR

5. Whether the liability of the Insurance Company was restricted to Rs. Two Lacs in terms of Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR

6. Whether the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle as alleged? OPR

7. Whether four persons were traveling in vehicle as an unauthorized occupants or gratuitous passengers as alleged?

OPR

8. Relief.

7. Issues Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 were answered in negative, whereas the issues Nos. 3, 4 and 6 were answered in affirmative. The claim petition was accordingly, dismissed.

8. The appellants/claimants examined five witnesses. Appellant No.1 appeared as PW-1 and reiterated the contents of the petition in her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ext.PW-1/A. In her cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited. PW-2 Tilak Raj submitted his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ext. PW-2/A. He stated, on oath, that he was one of the occupants of ill-fated vehicle at the time of the accident. He corroborated the version of PW-1. In cross-examination, he stated that in accident he received minor injuries, but he was not medically examined by the doctor. He had not got registered the FIR. He denied that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased. PW-4 Sonu Kumar, through his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ext.PW-4/A reiterated the version of PW-1 and PW-2. In cross-examination, he stated that he had also received injuries in the accident and was medically examined. He admitted that he