JUDGMENT 1. - Instant miscellaneous appeal impugns the Judgment dated 14th March, 1995, of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer whereby, the claim petition of the claimants was allowed and Rs. 7,09,000/- was awarded to the claimants as compensation. 2. The claim petition relates to the accident occurred on 25th December, 1991 which resulted in tragic death of Raj Kumar Sahu. The legal representatives of the deceased submitted claim petition before the learned Tribunal to which the appellant Insurance Company filed written statement. 3. Learned Tribunal framed as many as eight issues and recorded the statements of Smt. Kunu Sahu (AW-1) and Sh. R.N. Verma (AW- 2). No evidence, however, was adduced by the Insurance Company. After appreciating the evidence and material on record, the learned Tribunal allowed the petition of the claimants and granted compensation to them. 4. Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted an application for transposition of the vehicle owner Laxman Singh, respondent No. 6 as the appellant. Mr. H.R. Panwar, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants opposed this application. 5. After hearing the submissions advanced before me, I do not consider it proper and reasonable to allow the application. Hence it is rejected. 6. Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant made a spathic criticism of the findings of learned Tribunal. His contention is that the conditions of the Insurance Policy were flouted by the vehicle driver, therefore, Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated from the liability. I am unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, it was not pleaded that the insured of the vehicle wilfully flouted the conditions of the insurance policy. In Sohan Lai Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and others, J.T. 1996(6) SC 728 : 1996(2) T.A.C. 733 (SC) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded as under : "As such the. Insurance Company will have to establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise. The insurer has also to satisfy the Tribunal or the Court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was wilful.... Insurance Company will have to establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise. The insurer has also to satisfy the Tribunal or the Court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was wilful.... While interpreting the contract of insurance, the Tribunals and Courts have to be conscious of the fact that right to claim compensation by heirs and legal representatives of the victims of the accident is not defeated on technical grounds. Unless it is established on the materials on record that it was the insured who had wilfully violated the condition of the policy by allowing a person not duly licensed to drive the vehicle when the accident took place, the insurer shall be deemed to be a judgment-debtor in respect of the liability in view of subsection (1) of Section 96 of the Act." 7. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the appellant Insurance Company to plead specifically in the written statement that the insured wilfully flouted the condition of the Insurance Company but no such pleading was raised. More so, the Insurance Company did not think it proper to examine any witness in support of its case. Thus, I see no illegality in the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Resultant, the appeal of the Insurance Company fails and is hereby dismissed. 8. So far as cross-objection filed by the claimant is concerned, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly determined the compensation. The evidence of the claimants as well as material on record was examined properly and compensation in the sum of Rs. 7,09,000/- was granted to the claimants which in my opinion is sufficient and not required to be stepped up. Resultant, the cross-objections are dismissed. The record of the case be sent back to the learned Tribunal. *******