The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the insurance company to establish the breach of policy conditions and the liability of the owner of the vehicle.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J. - The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 30.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short, 'Tribunal') whereby the claimant-respondent no. 1 has been found entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,89,800/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

2. It appears that on 13.09.2006, respondent no. 1-claimant suffered an accident in which offending vehicle bearing registration no. JK02R-1246 that was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver-respondent no. 3 was involved. The vehicle in question belonged to respondent no. 2. The injured-respondent no. 1 suffered permanent disability to the extent of 32% and she filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned award was passed in favour of the respondent no. 1 and the liability to satisfy the amount was fastened on the appellant-insurance company.

3. One of the issues framed by the learned Tribunal was relating to the question as to whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence on the said issue, came to the conclusion that the appellant-insurance company has not been able to prove the said issue.

4. The appellant-insurance company has challenged the aforesaid finding of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the insurance company had led evidence by examining the concerned clerk of the Regional Transport Officer, Jammu, who had clearly deposed that the driving licence held by respondent no. 3-driver was fake. According to the appellant, in the face of this evidence, it was not open to the learned Tribunal to hold that there has been no breach of policy condition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record of the Tribunal.

6. Issue no. 3 that was framed by the learned Tribunal is relevant to the context and the same is reproduced as under:

'Whether at the time of accident driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and drove the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy?'

7. The onus of proving the aforesaid issue was upon the appellant-Insurance Company. Accordingly, clerk of Regional Transport Officer, Jammu-Sushil Kumar was produced as witness by the Insurance Company to discharge its burden. In his statement, the witness Sushil Kumar, who happened to be the record keeper of the Regional Transport Officer, Jammu deposed, on the basis of the record, that the driving licence No. 1508/MVD/RTO-J has been issued in the name of Rajan Kumar S/o. Charan Dass and not in the name of respondent no. 3-Sanchit Singh. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the driving licence No. 1508, as per record has not been issued in the name of respondent no. 3-Sanchit Singh.

8. The learned Tribunal discarded the aforesaid statement of the Record Keeper of Regional Transport Office, Jammu by observing that the insurance company has failed to bring on record the licence issued in favour of respondent no. 3-driver and that the record which has been produced pertains to the licence issued in the name of one Rajan Kumar.

9. The record shows that the licence that was produced along with the claim petition before the learned Tribunal during the trial of the case bears the number 1508/MVD/RTO-J and it has been issued in the name of respondent no. 3-Sanchit Singh. The record pertaining to licence No. 1508 was summoned from the RTO's office which revealed that the licence no. 1508 has been issued in the name of Rajan Kumar and not in the name of respondent no. 3-Sanchit Singh. It clearly goes on to show that the licence that was produced on record before the learned Tribunal is fake. Thus, the observation of the learned Tribunal that relevant record has not been produced is not tenable as the same is factually incorrect.

10. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2-owner has submitted that as per the