NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. AMRIT LAL AND ORS. (S.B.C.MISC. APPEAL NO.332/10) 1 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. AMRIT LAL AND ORS. (S.B.C.MISC. APPEAL NO.332/10) Dated:- 20.5.10. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Jagdish Vyas, for the appellant. 1. This appeal is directed against award dated 24.4.09 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in Accident Claim Case No.187/07, whereby compensation of Rs. 6,94,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition excluding the period of three months, has been awarded in favour of the respondents/claimants. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant assailing the award is that as per Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”), no owner of the motor vehicle is authorised to use the vehicle as a transport vehicle in public place save in accordance with the conditions of the permit granted by any prescribed authority authorising him to use the vehicle in that place. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the instant case, the vehicle was being used as a transport vehicle in a public place without any permit being granted by the prescribed authority and thus, the owner of the vehicle has violated the policy conditions, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 149 (2) (a) of the Act, no liability can be fastened NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. AMRIT LAL AND ORS. (S.B.C.MISC. APPEAL NO.332/10) 2 upon the appellant insurance company. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside qua the appellant insurance company. 3. Indisputably, the burden to prove the breach of the policy conditions was upon the appellant insurance company. It is to be noticed that though an objection was taken by the appellant insurance company in counter to the claim petition and an issue was also framed by the tribunal but no evidence was led by the appellant insurance company to establish that the transport vehicle in question was being plied in public place without a valid permit. Even the witness produced on behalf of the appellant insurance company NAW-1 Nazimuddin has nowhere deposed that the transport vehicle in question was being plied without a permit. In considered opinion of this Court, in absence of any evidence being produced by the appellant insurance company, the tribunal has committed no error in deciding the issue against the appellant insurance company and in favour of the claimants. 4. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. In view of the discussion above, the appeal lacks merit, it is hereby dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Rp/-