The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer must prove the owner's negligence and breach of policy conditions to avoid liability. The owner's knowledge of the driver's forged license is crucial in determining the insurer's liability.

( 1 ) THESE appeals have been preferred by the owner, aggrieved by an award dated 11. 2. 2005 passed by First addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, sidhi. All these cases arise out of the same accident.

( 2 ) IT is averred by the claimants that the deceased persons used to do the work of labour. On 28. 3. 2002 deceased persons and two injured persons were going in tata truck 608 (MP 17-A 2136 ). Deceased and injured were labourers. They were going towards Churhat, truck was driven by Munnalal Kol in a rash and negligent manner, dashed with another stationary truck (MP 17-C 2084 ). Driver of the truck 608, Babulal, Lalji, Daduwa Yadav, Ramraj singh died in the accident. Accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver Munnalal Kol. Udaybhan and Shivcharan sustained injuries. Report of the incident was lodged at the concerned police station. Post-mortem of the deceased was performed. Injured were also medically examined. Claimants have prayed for just compensation.

( 3 ) THE owner in the reply denied the allegations and contended that Munnalal kol had no permission to go to load the wooden logs. He was not allowed by owner to load the logs. Without permission, he had taken certain incumbents for which owner cannot be said to be responsible. Driver was instructed to leave the truck at the petrol pump, Churhat. He loaded certain wooden logs and was going to Churhat for unloading. The owner, driver and the insurer of other truck were also necessary parties.

( 4 ) THE insurer contended that the truck was used in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In the goods vehicle passengers could not have been taken. Driver was not having valid and effective driving licence. Hence, the insurer is not liable to make the payment of compensation.

( 5 ) LEARNED Claims Tribunal has found that driving licence of Munnalal Kol was forged. It was not issued by the concerned r. T. O. , Raipur. Apart from that the finding has been recorded that the passengers were taken in the truck at the time of accident, hence, there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. Hence, the insurer is not liable to make the payment of compensation.

( 6 ) MR. Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the statement of owner has not been properly understood by the learned Claims tribunal. He has submitted that without his knowledge and permission wooden logs were loaded and labourers were taken in the truck by the driver. He has further submitted that it is apparent from the policy, Exh. D2, exhibited in the Claim case No. 41 of 2004 that the insurance company has realized the premium for employees not exceeding six in number other than the driver. As the premium was realized by the insurer for six employees, as deceased persons were travelling in the capacity of labourer to unload the wooden logs which were loaded in the truck, insurer is liable. In case this fact was not in the knowledge of the owner, case of the insurer is not advanced in any manner. The entire statement of the owner has been misinterpreted by learned Claims Tribunal. Even if the labourers were taken without the knowledge of the owner by the driver for unloading the wooden logs that would not constitute violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It cannot be said to be a breach of policy much less substantial breach of the policy on the part of the owner, as such insurer cannot escape from the liability to make indemnification. With respect to the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the licence held by the driver, Munnalal Kol was forged, the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in United india Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 acj 611 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), in which the Apex Court has laid down that until and unless it is in the knowledge of the owner that the licence held by