1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 942/2009 National Insurance Co.Ltd., ..versus... Mariumbi Sk. Afsar & others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 14th September, 2009. Heard Shri Paunikar, Counsel for the appellant. This first appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The respondents herein had filed a claim for compensation against respondent no.8 and the appellant. It was alleged that deceased Sk.Afsar Haji Ab Kadir was travelling on a motor-cycle. The said motor-cycle was hit by the Truck No. MP-23-B-6829, owned by Respondent no.8. The deceased died in the accident and, therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.6,52,500/-. Being aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company submits before me that the award could not have been passed against the Insurance Company for the reason, according to him, the truck which had hit the motor cycle was not holding a fitness certificate and therefore, there was a breach of condition of insurance policy and the Insurance Company, in such circumstances, ought to have been exonerated. This ground has been rightly rejected by the Judge of the Tribunal holding that running a truck without a fitness certificate may amount to an offence, but it is not a breach of condition of insurance policy as envisaged by Section 149, sub-section 2 (a) & (b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. After having gone through the said provisions, I find that the learned Judge was right in rejecting that contention. On this ground, I do not find that the learned Judge of the Tribunal committed any error. There is no reason to admit the appeal. The same is dismissed in limini. JUDGE. SVKhot