Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 9. 3. 05 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sidhi (in short the tribunal)in M. C. C. No. 50/04, appellant-National Insurance Co. (in short insurance Company) has preferred this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act ). ( 2. ) FACTS giving rise to the instant appeal are as follows:- ( 3. ) CLAIMANTS/respondents no. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as claimants) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of rs. 13,44,000/- on account of death of Jitendra, aged about 30 years in the motor accident. According to claimants, the accident occurred on 31. 12. 03 about 6. 30 PM at Churhat-Amiliya road, near village Majurhai (Sada) due to rash and negligent driving of Marshal Jeep No. MP/28-A-0658 by respondent no. 5, which belonged to respondent no. 4 and was insured with national Insurance Co. at the time of accident. On the fateful day, when deceased Jitendra was going to his home town Chhota tikat on his motorcycle No. MP/17-H-6954, he was dashed by marshal Jeep No. MP/28-A-0658 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 5. As a result, Jitendra sustained injuries and died on his way to hospital. Deceased Jitendra was a practicing lawyer and earning Rs. 6000/- per month, besides an additional income of Rs. 24,000/- per annum from his dairy business and he was spending Rs. 6000/- on his family. The claimants, therefore, claimed a total compensation of Rs. 13,44,000/- under various heads from the respondents no. 4, 5 and the Insurance Company. ( 4. ) THE claim petition was opposed by the owner and driver of the vehicle as well as insurance company. The defence of the owner and driver was that the deceased himself had dashed against Marshal Jeep, as his motorcycle slipped on account of rainy season and there was no negligence on the part of jeep driver. The defence of the appellant insurance company was that the marshal Jeep was being driven without licence, proper registration, and permit in breach of the conditions of the policy. As such insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. ( 5. The defence of the appellant insurance company was that the marshal Jeep was being driven without licence, proper registration, and permit in breach of the conditions of the policy. As such insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. ( 5. ) THE Tribunal held that the deceased Jitendra died on account of rash and negligent driving of the Marshal Jeep No. MP/28-A-0658 by jeep driver/respondent no. 5, and assessed his income at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded the total compensation of Rs. 4,39,000/- under various heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization by the impugned award, which has been assailed in this appeal by Insurance Company. ( 6. ) APPEAL is preferred inter alia on the ground that the tribunal failed to appreciate eyewitness account given by jeep driver/respondent no. 5 that deceased himself was driving the motorcycle negligently and had slipped himself sustaining fatal injuries and that there was clear breach of policy conditions in as much as respondent no. 5 was not holding the valid and effective driving licence; as such the insurance company could not be held liable and should have been exonerated. ( 7. ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. ( 8. ) AS there was no application moved on behalf of insurance company under Section 170 of the Act, it could not validly assail the finding of negligence of the jeep driver and the quantum of compensation as recorded by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, it is apparent from the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of Sandeep Singh (AW-2), who witnessed the accident, coupled with the testimony of jeep driver Santosh (N. A. W-1) himself and the documents placed on record that the deceased, while driving his motorcycle, met with an accident with marshal Jeep No. MP/28-A-0658 driven by respondent no. 5. It is also evident from the testimony of Sandeep Singh (AW-2) that the respondent no. 5 was driving the jeep at a fast speed and had dashed against the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The plea taken by the jeep driver/respondent no. 5. It is also evident from the testimony of Sandeep Singh (AW-2) that the respondent no. 5 was driving the jeep at a fast speed and had dashed against the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The plea taken by the jeep driver/respondent no. 5, that deceased himself had slipped on the muddy road and dashed against the Marshal jeep, was never put to the eyewitness Sandeep Singh (AW-2)during his cross-examination. The plea and the statement made by the Jeep driver/respondent no. 5 in this behalf appears to have been made with a view to escape from his own liability. On the other hand, in view of the cogent evidence of Sandeep Singh (AW-2), the negligence or contributory negligence could not be attributed to the deceased. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal that deceased died as a result of rash and negligence driving of jeep no. MP/28-A-0658 by respondent no. 5 cannot be faulted with. ( 9. ) THE Insurance Company also failed to prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and condition of the insurance policy. Needless to emphasize that the burden to prove the breach of terms and conditions of the policy lies with the insurance company. Moreover, in view of the licence (Ex. D-1) of the jeep driver /respondent no. 5 and other document placed on record, it could not be said that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of terms of insurance policy. As such the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation and should be exonerated, has no merit. ( 10. ) APPEAL, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.