The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the breach of policy conditions as a defense available to the insurer under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Mr. S.Subbiah, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of the first respondent and with the consent of both sides, this civil miscellaneous appeal is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

2. The second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.78 of 2007, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi, aggrieved by the Award and Decree, dated 30.10.2010, has preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal, challenging the liability to indemnify the insured, namely, Mani/third respondent herein.

3. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 are wife, daughter and mother of the deceased John Albert respectively.

4. According to the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants, the deceased was aged about 28 years and he was a Diploma-holder of Engineering and he was employed in a famous construction company, namely, “E.T.A. Constructions (India) Ltd., and he was earning about Rs.9,000/- per month and apart from it, in order to augment the income, he along with his friends acted as agents of “Jamai Ice Cream” at Kodaikanal.

5. On 15.03.2007, at about 08.45 a.m., when the deceased was proceeding as rider in his Motorbike bearing registration No.TN60 C4126, from Observatory to Kodaikanal, a Lorry bearing registration No.TN57 J9786, belonging to the third respondent and driven by him in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Motorbike driven by the deceased John Albert and due to which he sustained grievous injuries in his head and all over the body and died on the spot. The jurisdictional Police, namely, Kodaikanal Police registered a case in Crime No.111 of 2007, against the third respondent/owner-cum-driver of the lorry, for the commission of offence under Section 304-A I.P.C.

6. The respondents 1 and 2 / claimants claimed compensation of Rs.26,70,000/- under the following heads, however they restricted their claim to Rs.15,00,000/-:

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Loss of income @ Rs.9,000/- per month for 180 months from 15.03.2007 to 15.03.2022	Rs.16,20,000/-
2.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 30,000/-
3.	Loss of income	Rs. 5,00,000/-
4.	Pain and Suffering, Mental Agony and Loss of Love and Affection	Rs. 5,00,000/-
	Total	Rs.26,70,000/-
	Restricted to	Rs.15,00,000/-

7. The appellant/Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit denying the contents of the claim petition and also took a stand that at the time of accident, the third respondent/ Mani (owner-cum-driver of the Lorry) did not possess valid driving licence as it got expired on 24.07.2005 and it was renewed only on 19.06.2007 and in the interregnum the accident took place on 15.03.2007 and since it amounts to violation of policy conditions, they prayed for exoneration from indemnifying the insured, namely, Mani/third respondent. The appellant/Insurance Company also took a stand that the burden is on the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants to prove the nature of occupation and other material particulars and at any event the amount claimed by the claimants is on the higher side and hence prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

8. During the course of enquiry, the first respondent/first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one Prabhu, who was acting as an agent along with the deceased, was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked on the claimants' side. The fourth respondent/mother of the deceased was examined as R.W.1 and apart from her, S.K.Sundaram and Senthil Kumar were examined as R.Ws.2 and 3 respectively and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked on the respondents' side.

9. The Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, found that the third respondent/Mani (owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle) did not possess valid driving licence on the date of accident i.e.15.03.2007 as it got expired on 24.07.2005 and renewed on 19.06.2007 and hence the Tribunal applied