JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the award dated May 20, 1985 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balotra, allowing compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants. 2. The accident took place on September 24, 1980, on Gunga-Barmer road. The vehicle involved is a truck No. RCJ 1443 owned by Pukhraj s/o Mangilal. The vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. In the accident, Joga Ram sustained injuries as a result of which he died, at the spot. A claim petition was filed by Smt. Dhai, widow of Joga Ram and the children and parents of the deceased on March 18,1981. The Tribunal, by the award dated May 20, 1985, has awarded the compensation to the claimants as aforesaid. 3. According to the Tribunal the truck was being driven by Shri Pukhraj, owner himself, rashly and negligently. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the Insurance Co. has filed the present appeal. 4. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that Shri Pukhraj who himself was the owner of the truck and was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was not holding any licence. According to the counsel for the appellant, the Insurance Co. is not liable to make the payment because as per section 96(2)(b), the insured was under a breach of condition that the vehicle would not be driven by a person who is not duly licenced. It is urged that although the driver of the truck Jeta Ram was present in the truck but Pukhraj, owner of the truck himself took over the driving and the accident took place when the truck was being driven by Pukhraj. Section 96(2)(b) exonerates the Company to pay the amount of compensation if the insured was proved to be under a breach of a specified condition of the policy. Significantly, in the present case, the policy has not been produced and is not on the record of the court file. In the absence of the policy itself, it is difficult to hold that there was a condition in the policy that the vehicle will not be driven by a person not duly licenced. The Insurance Co. has failed to establish a breach of condition of the policy. Accordingly, the Insurance Co. cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the amount of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Co. has failed to establish a breach of condition of the policy. Accordingly, the Insurance Co. cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the amount of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal. No other point was is dismissed. 5. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. 6. The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.Appeal dismissed. *******