JUDGMENT 1. - Yet another appeal of the Insurance Company seeking exoneration from the liability to pay compensation to the claimant respondents has been preferred against the award dated 26.9.2000. 2. Claim petition was filed by the claimant respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur in connection with the death of Shambhu Lal who died on July 22, 1995 in an accident caused by Tanker No. RJ 13 G 1348. In the written statement the appellant Insurance Company pleaded that the deriver of the Tanker at the time of the accident was not holding valid driving licence. As the vehicle was being driven in breach of the conditions of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company could not have been held liable to make compensation. Learned Tribunal framed as many as three issues and after recording evidence of the parties grants compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,28,720/- to the claimants and held the appellant Insurance Company, vehicle owner and driver jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 3. I have heard Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and scanned the record. 4. Undeniably the appellant Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle owner committed wilful breach of the Insurance policy. Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence of Mangi Lal Jain (NAW 1) and Sita Ram (NAW 2) observed that the driver of the vehicle was holding valid driving licence at the time of the accident. In order to seek exoneration from the liability to pay compensation it was incumbent on the Insurance Company to establish that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and the owner of the vehicle had knowledge of this fact and he assisted the driver to commit the breach of the Insurance policy. In the case of Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1996 (2) T.A.C. 733(SC) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that section 96(2)(b)(ii) should not be interpreted in a technical manner. The expression 'breach occurring in section 96(2)(b) means infringement or violation of a promise or obligation. 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 that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was wilful. The expression 'breach occurring in section 96(2)(b) means infringement or violation of a promise or obligation. 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 that such violation or infringement 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 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 sub-section (1) of section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 5. In so far as arguments in respect of quantum of compensation is concerned the appellant Company cannot be allowed to raise defence now as no application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 was moved by it before the learned Tribunal. Even otherwise I closely scrutinised the award. The dependency of the deceased was rightly calculated on the I basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants and looking to the 28 years I age of the deceased multiplier was rightly applied. 6. I do not find any merit in the appeal, it is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******