JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant seeks to challenge the award dated 28.7. f997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kota whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- was awarded to the claimant-respondents in claim petition No. 308/93. 2. The claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of deceased Jagan Nath who died as a result of an accident on 22.5.1993 while going from Ladpura to Jhadot in Tractor No. RRO 6259 fitted with Trolly No. 6260. The appellant Insurance Co. in its reply averred that trolly was not insured with it. Besides this it was also pleaded that the tractor was used in contravention of the policy conditions by carrying passengers. It was not used for agricultural purposes and the driver was not having valid licence. Learned Tribunal framed issue No. 4 in respect of objection raised by the appellant company. 3. Admittedly, no evidence was adduced by the appellant insurance company in support of its contention and it failed to establish that the Tractor owner (insured) was guilty of an infringement or violation of promise. Burden lies on the Insurance Company to further establish that the breach of policy conditions on the part of the insured was wilful. Unless it is established on the material on record that it was the insured who had wilfully violated the conditions of the policy, the defence under section 96(2)(6) is not available to the Insurance Company ( Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Seshredy, (1996) 5 SCC 21 ) . 4. Ratio of Smt. Mallawwa v. The Oriental Insurance Co., JT 1998 (8) SC 217 cited by the counsel. is not applicable in the case on hand, which is governed by the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 whereas their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Mallawwa's case (supra) interpreted Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and observed in para 14 thus "The 1939 Act is now replaced by the 1988 Act. Section 147 which cor- responds to old Section 95 has been substantially altered by the Legislature. Therefore, the above interpretation of Section 95 of 1939 Act will govern the cases, which have arisen under the 1939 Act." 5. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed summarily.Appeal rejected. *******