The burden of proof lies with the insurer to establish any breach of policy conditions in order to avoid liability, as per the judgments in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chela Bharathamma and Ors. and National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 1379 and 1380 of 2006 as these appeals have been preferred against the composite award dated 23.1.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, while deciding M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 87 and 88 of 2004. The facts have been taken from F.A.O. No. 1379 of 2006.

2. This is an appeal filed Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, the Act), prays for setting aside the award dated 23.1.2006, pronounced by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri (for brevity, the MACT). The claimant-respondents have been awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- Kamlesh Kaur, Kamaljit Singh (minor) and Raghvinder Kaur (minor) in M.A.C.T. Case No. 87 of 2004 against which instant F.A.O. No. 1379 of 2006 has been filed. In the other case i.e. M.A.C.T. Case No. 88 of 2004, subject matter of F.A.O. No. 1380 of 2006, the claimant-respondent Raghvinder Kaur has been awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for the injuries suffered by her. The M.A.C.T. has found that the accident on 27.9.2004, had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending Dumper No. HR 3 8-6705. In support of the finding, the statement of Raghvinder Kaur, claimant-respondent No. 3, who was a pillion rider of motor cycle of her father (Karnail Singh) has been cited. It is appropriate to mention that Raghvinder Kaur has sustained injuries in the accident. The statement of PW-5 and other eye-witnesses has also been relied upon. F.I.R. Ex.P-5 has also been registered against the driver-respondent No. 4. The M.A.C.T. rejected the argument that there was a requirement of route permit for goods carriage vehicle and since the offending vehicle did not have any route permit, the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The reasoning is available in para 23 of the award of the MACT. Firstly, it has been held that the onus to prove the requirement of a route permit for a goods vehicle was placed on the Insurance Company-appellant as is evident from the perusal of Issue No. 4. No witness has been produced nor any document has been placed on record to prove the fact that the offending vehicle was without a route permit and that such a permit was required within the State of Haryana. The Registration Certificate of the vehicle was produced by PW-2 Suman Jit Singh, Criminal Ahlmad, from criminal case file but no suggestion was given to him by the Insurance Company-appellant that the said vehicle was without any route permit and that there was any such entry to that effect in the Registration Certificate itself. Therefore, the M.A.C.T. did not permit reliance on a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chela Bharathamma and Ors. (2005-1) 139 P.L.R. 102 (S.C.) (this judgment has been described as unreported judgment).

3. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company-appellant has raised the same argument once again stating that route permit in respect of goods vehicle was also required even if it was plying within State of Haryana. However, he has not substantiated his argument either by citing any statute or rule or any judgment.

4. Having heard the learned Counsel, we are of the view that the M.A.C.T. has taken the correct view by awarding a meager sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- by taking income of the deceased Karnail Singh as that of an agricultural labour, which is Rs. 2,400/- per month. After allowing deduction of l/3rd, it has calculated the same to be Rs. 1,600/- per month. A multiplier of 15 (1600 x 12 x 15) has been applied to arrive at total income of Rs. 2,88,000/- in addition to the compensation on account of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Accordingly, a total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been awarded, which by no stretch of imagination could be considered excessive. The aforementioned compensation has to be shared by the widow and two minor children of the dec