Judgment Heard Mr. D.S. Kulkarni, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.L. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant. Respondents 1 to 5 are served-absent. 2. Present respondent nos.1 to 3 have filed Petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation against the present respondent nos.4 to 5 and the present appellant-insurer. The present respondent nos.4 and 5 were arrayed as driver and owner of the offending motorcycle. 3. The original claimants are the widow and offsprings respectively of deceased Kishor Raut. On 21.1.1994, while he was travelling by the offending motorcycle as a pillion rider at about 11.30 am. near Dhaleshwar Mandir, near Jalna-Bhokardan road, the motorcycle met with an accident. In the said accident, the deceased has died. The original claimants claimed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.4. and that the present appellant was during the relevant period, the insurer of the same. 4. In that view of the matter, the original claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-from all the respondents in the Petition jointly and severally. 5. The owner of the motorcycle, though filed the written statement, remained absent at the time of the trial. The present appellant i.e. the insurer contested the claim. 6. The defence of the present appellant in short was as under: That the motorcycle was being driven by the present respondent no.4 by carrying two pillion riders on the motorcycle against the rules and in breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance. It was further submitted that the motorcycle driver was not holding any valid and effective driving license and this was another breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance. It was also submitted that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. In the alternative, the pleadings regarding the quantum were disputed. 7. Before the learned Member of the M.A.C.T., the original claimant no.1 Pushpa entered the witness box. Naturally, she had no personal information about the actual occurrence of the accident. Admittedly, the evidence was in the nature of certain copy of the FIR and the panchanama recorded by the concerned Police Station and the copy of the postmortem examination. 8. 7. Before the learned Member of the M.A.C.T., the original claimant no.1 Pushpa entered the witness box. Naturally, she had no personal information about the actual occurrence of the accident. Admittedly, the evidence was in the nature of certain copy of the FIR and the panchanama recorded by the concerned Police Station and the copy of the postmortem examination. 8. On the basis of the evidence before him, the learned Member came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the original respondent no.1. It appears from the judgment that the defence of the insurer regarding the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance was not adverted to and considering the evidence regarding the loss of dependency and other nonpecuniary damages, compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-, including interest at the rate of 12% per annum including the amount towards no-fault liability was awarded. Aggrieved by the said award, the present Appeal is filed. 9. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. did not advert to the fact that three persons were riding the motorcycle and the motorcycle driver was not having valid or effective driving license at the time of the accident. He further submitted that the learned Member even did not frame any issue on the specific pleadings of the present appellant on this count. In the circumstances, he submits that the award be set aside. 10. On the basis of this material, following point arises for my determination:- I) Whether the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. committed error in not framing the issues and if the answer to the same is in the affirmative, then what is the effect of the same? My answer to point No.(I) is though the learned Member committed error, it has no bearing on the result. REASONS:- 11. It cannot be gainsaid that the learned Member did not frame any issue on the specific pleadings of the appellant regarding the breach of the terms and conditions and policy of insurance on two counts i.e. riding the motorcycle with two pillion riders and absence of valid and effective driving license with the original respondent no.1 i.e. the motorcycle driver. 12. 12. It should however be noted that though the learned Member did not frame specific issues, there was no prohibition from him in leading any evidence on this count. The original petitioner i.e. claimant Pushpa entered the witness box and deposed on the line of her pleadings. The record shows that during the cross-examination on behalf of the present appellant, no questions were put to her as regards the specific pleadings of the present appellant. Thus, it is not the case where the learned Member did not permit any evidence on the pleadings about which no specific issues were framed. In this view of the matter, it would not now be proper to remand the case to the learned Member. 13. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that the record would clearly show that two pillion riders were being taken on the motorcycle and this fact itself, without any evidence of the insurer, would be sufficient to show that there was breach of one of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It may further be noted that there is nothing on record to show that carrying three persons by the motorcycle has in any way contributed in causing of the accident, thereby absolving the insurer from payment of the compensation. 14. In view of the above fact, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. The Appeal is therefore dismissed, without any order as to costs.