Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. F.A.F.O. No. 2272 of 2010 and other connected appeals listed today, filed by the insurer, arise from an accident that occurred on 9.9.2005, involving a bus owned by Rajkumar-respondent No. 2, bearing registration No. UP12-C/5011 (hereinafter referred to as the bus). It was insured by the present appellant. These appeals arise from ten death cases and six injury cases. Details of the claims involved in all these appeals given as under :

Sl.	FAFO No.	MACP No.	Claimant Name	Death/Injury	Amount awarded.
1.	2558 of 2010	46 of 2006	Hashmi and another	Injury case	Rs. 26,502/-
2.	2560 of 2010	45 of 2006	Yusuf  and another	Injury case	Rs. 10,086/-
3.	1299 of 2010	411 of 2005	Devi Singh and another	Death case	Rs. 1,30,000/-
4.	2143 of 2010	360 of 2005	Jai Pal Singh and another	Injury case	Rs. 29,819/-
5.	2144 of 2010	426 of 2005	Harpal Singh and another	Injury case	Rs. 21,699/-
6.	2145 of 2010	361 of 2005	Pravinder Kumar and another	Injury case	Rs. 21,756/-
7.	2557 of 2010	446 of 2005	Kallu and others	Death case	Rs. 95,000/-
8.	2272 of 2010	338 of 2005	Sharafat and others	Death case	Rs. 1,10,000/-
9.	2298 of 2010	420 of 2005	Smt. Amrita and others	Death case	Rs. 3,70,000/-
10.	2260 of 2010	367 of 2005	Ravindra Kumar and others	Death case	Rs, 2,39,000/-
11.	2265 of 2010	421 of 2005	Smt. Husna and others	Death case	Rs. 3,46,000-/-
12.	1300 of 2010	419 of 2005	Rabbani and others	Death case	Rs. 2,30,000/-
13.	2264 of 2010	373 of 2005	Smt. Needan Kaur and another	Death case	Rs. 1,30,000/-
14.	2582 of 2010	457 of 2005	Jaipal and others	Death case	Rs. 1,30,000/-
15.	2315 of 2010	544 of 2006	Smt. Susheela and another	Death case	Rs. 1,30,000/-
16.	2273 of 2010	353 of 2005	Ombir and another	Death case	Rs. 2,35,000/-

       3. The claim petition disclosed the name of the owner as bus owner as Rajkumar. The owner of the bus entered appearance and in his written statement contended, at the time of accident, the bus was being driven by one Pravendra Kumar whose driving licence was also produced. The insurer on the other hand stated, the bus was being driven not by Pravendra Kumar but by Shakeel who did not have a valid and effective driving licence.

4. On such pleadings, four issues were framed by the Tribunal. First, as to the cause of accident; second, whether at the time of accident the bus was being driven by a person holding a valid and effective driving licence; third, whether at the time of the accident the bus was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and; fourth, as to compensation to be awarded.

5. It is admitted to the parties, the accident occurred at Village Lachera wherein the bus overturned and collided with a tree. In that accident many passengers travelling in the bus died and some received injuries. About 22 claim petitions in all are stated to have been filed.

6. Today, ten appeals involving claims arising out of death and six appeals involving claims arising out of injuries suffered in that accident are listed. It is stated at the bar that there are some other matters which are not listed today or their files have not reached the Court.

7. The only issue raised in these appeals, all filed by the insurer, is it was a case of clear breach of terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in fact and in law in reaching the conclusion there was no breach and consequently, it further erred in not making the award against the owner or in not granting to the appellant a right to recover against the owner.

8. According to the insurer, the breach in the terms and conditions of the contract is on two co