JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. All these CIMAs have arisen out of a common judgment delivered by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajouri and involve common question of law as to whether the Insurance Company can be held liable for payment of compensation to the victims of the accident while the vehicle was being driven in breach of the conditions of the Insurance Policy. As common question of law and facts is involved in all these appeals, same have been considered and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts as borne out from the record of these CIMAs are that on 02.02.2007 the offending vehicle, i.e., Mini Bus bearing registration No. 2290/JK02K allegedly carrying about 40 passengers met with an accident and fell into a ditch at Dabbar Mohra, Bassali, Nowshera, while being driven by its driver, namely. Mohinder Kumar, rashly and negligently, as a result of which 8 persons lost their lives and five others sustained grievous injuries. A case vide FIR No. 17/2007 came to be registered at Police Station Nowshera. Legal representatives of deceased passengers as well as injured of the said accident filed as many as 31 claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajouri, out of which 13 claim petitions came to be clubbed together by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal decided all these 13 claim petitions by way of common judgment and award dated 20.04.2012, impugned herein, thereby awarding different amount of compensation under different heads in favour of claimants in those claim petitions. Insurance Company being not satisfied with the award has questioned the same by the medium of these thirteen different CIMAs. A1. File/Claim Petition No. 572/Claim, titled as, Preeti Sharma & Ors. v. Subash Chander & Anr. 2. In this case the deceased was an Army personnel and was 35 years of age when he died in the said accident. Last pay drawn by him was Rs. 8150/-. Learned Tribunal while taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased, took the monthly salary of deceased at Rs. 12,000/- and the annual dependency worked out was Rs. 1,08,000/- after deducting 1/4th of the salary towards the personal expenses of the deceased. While applying multiplier 14, the total loss of dependency worked out by the learned Tribunal was Rs. 15,12,000/-, besides Rs. 12,000/- and the annual dependency worked out was Rs. 1,08,000/- after deducting 1/4th of the salary towards the personal expenses of the deceased. While applying multiplier 14, the total loss of dependency worked out by the learned Tribunal was Rs. 15,12,000/-, besides Rs. 5000/- each was also awarded on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded in this case was Rs. 15,22,000/- (15,12,000 + 5000 + 5000 along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A2. File/Claim Petition No. 579/Claim, Joginder Kumar & Ors. v. Subash Chander & Anr. 3. In this case the deceased was stated to be an Anganwari Worker and was also helping the family in agriculture activities. She was 40 years of age at the time of said accident and was getting Rs. 700/- per month as wages. Learned Tribunal while taking into consideration that she was discharging her duties towards her family right from morning till evening and was also helping the family, took the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3000/- and the annual dependency worked out was Rs. 27000/- after deducting 1/4th of the income towards her personal expenses. While applying multiplier 14, the total loss of dependency worked out by the learned Tribunal was Rs. 3,78,000/-, besides Rs. 5000/- each was also awarded on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded in this case was Rs. 3,88,000/- (3,78,000 + 5000 + 5000) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A3. File/Claim Petition No. 581/Claim, Dharam Paul & Ors. v. Subash Chander & Anr. 4. In this case the deceased was claimed to be a Tailor by profession and was earning Rs. 200/- per day. Besides this, she was also stated to be looking after the agriculture activities of the family. Thus, in all, it has been pleaded that she was earning Rs. 8000/- per month. She was 26 years of age at the time of said accident. Learned Tribunal while taking into consideration that she was discharging her duties towards her family right from morning till evening and was also helping the family, assumed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3000/- and the annual dependency worked out was Rs. 8000/- per month. She was 26 years of age at the time of said accident. Learned Tribunal while taking into consideration that she was discharging her duties towards her family right from morning till evening and was also helping the family, assumed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3000/- and the annual dependency worked out was Rs. 24000/- after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards her personal expenses as she was only one dependant. While applying multiplier 17, the total loss of dependency worked out by the learned Tribunal was Rs. 3,84,000/-, besides Rs. 5000/- each was also awarded on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded in this case was Rs. 3,94,000/- (3,78,000 + 5000 + 5000) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A4. File/Claim Petition No. 88/Claim Surinder Kour & Ors. v. Subash Chander & Anr. 5. In this case the deceased was 60 years old at the time of accident and was stated to be having Dairy Farm. Learned Tribunal while going through the evidence and the material placed on record assumed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3000/- and the annual dependency worked out was Rs. 28,800/- after deducting 1/5th of the income towards his personal expenses as he was having seven dependants. While applying multiplier 8, the total loss of dependency worked out by the learned Tribunal was Rs. 2,30,400/-, besides Rs. 5000/- each was also awarded on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded in this case was Rs. 2,40,400/- (2,30,400 + 5000 + 5000) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A5. File/Claim Petition No. 568/Claim; Bhem Sen & Ors. v. Subash Chander & Anr. 6. In this case the deceased was 55 years of age and was claimed to be earning Rs. 6500/- per month. Learned Tribunal while taking into consideration the material placed on record and the evidence adduced assumed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3000/- and the annual dependency worked out was Rs. 24000/- after deducting 1/3rd of the income to towards her personal expenses. While applying multiplier 10, the total loss of dependency worked out by the learned Tribunal was Rs. 2,40,000/-, besides Rs. 5000/- was also awarded on account of funeral expenses. 3000/- and the annual dependency worked out was Rs. 24000/- after deducting 1/3rd of the income to towards her personal expenses. While applying multiplier 10, the total loss of dependency worked out by the learned Tribunal was Rs. 2,40,000/-, besides Rs. 5000/- was also awarded on account of funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded in this case was Rs. 2,45,000/- (2,40,000 + 5000) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A6. File/Claim Petition No. 570/Claim, Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Subash Chander & Anr. 7. In this case the deceased was a young boy of 18 years and was getting Rs. 4000/- per month while working in a Shopping Centre. It was claimed that he was also helping the family in agriculture activities. Learned Tribunal while taking into account the material placed on record assumed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 4500/-. The annual dependency in round figure worked out was Rs. 27600/- after deducting 50% of the income towards his personal expenses. While applying multiplier 17, the total loss of dependency worked out in round figure by the learned Tribunal was Rs. 4,69,000/-, besides Rs. 5000/- each was also awarded on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded in this case was Rs. 4,79,000/- (4,69,000 + 5000 + 5000) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A7. File/Claim Petition No. 573/Claim, Subash Chander & Ors. v. Subash Chander & Anr. 8. In this case the deceased was 40 years of age and was claimed to be earning Rs. 7500/- per month. Learned Tribunal while taking into consideration the material placed on record and the evidence adduced assumed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3000/- and the annual dependency worked out was Rs. 24000/- after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards her personal expenses. While applying multiplier 14, the total loss of dependency worked out by the learned Tribunal was Rs. 3,36,000/-, besides Rs. 5000/- each was also awarded on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded in this case was Rs. 3,46,000/- (3,36,000 + 5000 + 5000) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A8. File/Claim Petition No. 574/Claim, Vijay Kumar & Ors. 3,36,000/-, besides Rs. 5000/- each was also awarded on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded in this case was Rs. 3,46,000/- (3,36,000 + 5000 + 5000) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A8. File/Claim Petition No. 574/Claim, Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. Subash Chander & Anr. 9. In this case the deceased was 35 years of age and was claimed to be earning Rs. 7000/- per month. Learned Tribunal while taking into consideration the material placed on record and evidence adduced assumed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3000/- and the annual dependency worked out was Rs. 27000/- after deducting 1/4th of the income towards her personal expenses. While applying multiplier 15, the total loss of dependency worked out by the learned Tribunal was Rs. 4,05,000/-, besides Rs. 5000/- each was also awarded on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded in this case was Rs. 4,15,000/- (4,05,000 + 5000 + 5000) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A9. File/Claim Petition No. 113/Claim, Darshan Kumar v. Subash Chander & Anr. 10. In this case the injured was 48 years of age at the time of accident and was a Shopkeeper by profession. Learned Tribunal while taking into account the evidence adduced and the material placed on record assumed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3000/-. As per the medical record the injured-claimant suffered 45% disability. Learned Tribunal while applying multiplier 12 and taking into consideration the disability of injured-claimant awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,64,000/- in his favour under different heads, i.e., Rs. 1,94,000 in round figure for loss of future earning, Rs. 50,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 20,000 for pain and suffering, with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A10. File/Claim Petition No. 05/Claim, Dharam Paul v. Subash Chander & Anr. 11. In this case the injured was 30 years of age at the time of accident and he claimed to be a Rehbare-Taleem Teacher, but he did not produce any documentary proof in support of the same before the learned Tribunal. A10. File/Claim Petition No. 05/Claim, Dharam Paul v. Subash Chander & Anr. 11. In this case the injured was 30 years of age at the time of accident and he claimed to be a Rehbare-Taleem Teacher, but he did not produce any documentary proof in support of the same before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal while taking into account the evidence adduced and the material placed on record assumed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3000/-. As per the medical record the injured-claimant suffered 15% permanent disability. Learned Tribunal 'while applying multiplier 15 and taking into consideration the permanent disability of injured-claimant, awarded in round figure a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in his favour under different heads, i.e., Rs. 81,000 for loss of future earning, Rs. 10,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A11. File/Claim Petition No. 307/Claim, Satya Devi v. Subash Chander & Anr. 12. In this case the injured was 60 years of age at the time of accident and she claimed to be earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as she was looking after the Agriculture husbandry of her family, but she did not produce any documentary proof in support of the same before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal while taking into account the evidence adduced and the material placed on record assumed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3000/-. As per the medical record the injured-claimant suffered 25% permanent disability. Learned Tribunal while applying multiplier 8 and taking into consideration the permanent disability of injured-claimant, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,22,000/- in her favour under different heads, i.e., Rs. 72,000 for loss of future earning, Rs. 30,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 20,000 for pain and suffering, with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A12. File/Claim Petition No. 569/Claim, Sonia Sharma v. Subash Chander & Anr. 13. In this case the injured was a student of Class 5th. Learned Tribunal while taking into account the evidence adduced and the material placed on record assumed her Annual income at Rs. 15000/- on notional basis. As per the medical record the injured-claimant suffered 10% permanent disability. Learned Tribunal while applying multiplier 14 and taking into consideration the permanent disability of injured-claimant, awarded a total compensation of Rs. Learned Tribunal while taking into account the evidence adduced and the material placed on record assumed her Annual income at Rs. 15000/- on notional basis. As per the medical record the injured-claimant suffered 10% permanent disability. Learned Tribunal while applying multiplier 14 and taking into consideration the permanent disability of injured-claimant, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 51,000/- in her favour under different heads, i.e., Rs. 21,000 for loss of future earning, Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering, with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A13. File/Claim Petition No. 571/Claim, Pankaj Kumar v. Subash Chander & Anr. 14. In this case the injured was a student of Class 9th and was 14 years of age at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal while taking into account the evidence adduced and the material placed on record assumed his annual income at Rs. 15000/- on notional basis. As per the medical record the injured-claimant suffered 10% disability. Learned Tribunal while applying multiplier 14 and taking into consideration the disability of injured-claimant, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 51,000/- in his favour under different heads, i.e., Rs. 21,000 for loss of future earning, Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 10,000 for pain & suffering, with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 15. Appellant-Insurance Company feeling aggrieved has filed these appeals against the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal on three counts, i.e., (i) the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident; (ii) the offending vehicle was being plied without valid route permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident; and (iii) the offending vehicle was grossly overloaded at the time of accident as it was carrying more than 40 persons against the seating capacity of 19 persons including the driver and cleaner. 16. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, examined the pleadings, documents and perused the Record of learned Tribunal. 17. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not disputed the quantum of compensation, but has questioned its liability to pay the award amount. Claimants in these appeals have also not questioned the award on any count. Therefore, so far as amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, the same has attained finality. 18. 17. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not disputed the quantum of compensation, but has questioned its liability to pay the award amount. Claimants in these appeals have also not questioned the award on any count. Therefore, so far as amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, the same has attained finality. 18. The only question that arises herein for consideration is: whether the appellant-Insurance Company on the basis of pleas taken by it can be held liable for payment of compensation? The answer is yes for the following reasons. 19. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company submitted that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, therefore, the learned Tribunal has fallen in error while holding the Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation, inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, rather it was being plied without valid route permit and the offending vehicle was grossly overloaded at the time of accident. 20. The first ground taken by the appellant-Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident 21. While dealing with the evidence adduced by the appellant-Insurance Company, learned Tribunal after relying on a case, titled as, Punam Devi v. Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 1742 , came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company has not led any evidence to show that the driver of the offending vehicle had no license, thus has failed to establish that its driver either had no license or invalid license at the time of accident. 22. Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, for short, the Act) gives a right to the insurer to take a defence that the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having valid driving license or had no license. In other words, the said Section puts a condition excluding driving by any person who is not duly licensed. 23. In other words, the said Section puts a condition excluding driving by any person who is not duly licensed. 23. The question as to whether the Insurance Company can repudiate its liability to pay the compensation in respect of the accident by a vehicle taking a defence that at the relevant time it was being driven by a person having no licence, was dealt with by a 3-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in case, titled as, Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC 21 . The Apex Court after interpreting the provisions of Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Act corresponding to Section 149 of the new Act, observed as under:- "12..........According to us, Section 96(2)(b)(ii) should not be interpreted in a technical manner. Sub-section (2) of Section 96 only enables the insurance company to defend itself in respect of the liability to pay compensation on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) including that there has been a contravention of the condition excluding the vehicle being driven by any person who is not duly licensed. This bar on the face of it operates on the person insured. If the person who has got the Vehicle insured has allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person who is not duly licensed then only that clause shall be attracted. In a case where the person who has got insured the vehicle with the insurance company, has appointed a duly licensed driver and if the accident takes place when the vehicle is being driven by a person not duly licensed on the basis of the authority of the driver duly authorized to drive the vehicle whether the insurance company in that event shall be absolved from its liability? 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 the Tribunal or the Court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was willful. 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 willful. If the insured has taken all precautions by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle in question and it has not been established that it was the insured who allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person not duly licensed, then the insurance company cannot repudiate its statutory liability under sub-section (1) of Section 96." 24. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , a 3-Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held as under: "110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i)-(ii) ...... (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defenses raised in the said proceedings but must also establish "breach" on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act." 25. Appellant-Insurance Company though had taken a stand before the learned Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, yet it failed to lead any evidence to prove the same or that the insured had committed any breach in terms of the mandate of the Act read with any other law applicable. In fact, it was the insurer who had to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of the policy regarding use of vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. In the given circumstances, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue whether the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding valid driving license are upheld. 26. The second ground urged by the appellant-Insurance Company is that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was being plied without valid Route Permit and Fitness Certificate. 27. Learned Tribunal while dealing with this issue has observed that even if it is presumed that what is pleaded by appellant-Insurance Company is correct, still it cannot avoid the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the dependants of the deceased and the injured, as the defenses available to it under Section 149(2) of the Act are very limited. Learned Tribunal while dealing with this issue has observed that even if it is presumed that what is pleaded by appellant-Insurance Company is correct, still it cannot avoid the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the dependants of the deceased and the injured, as the defenses available to it under Section 149(2) of the Act are very limited. Learned Tribunal further held that non-renewal of Route Permit or invalidity of Fitness Certificate are not the defences available to the Insurance Company to avoid liability to compensate the third party. 28. Appellant-insurance company took the stand that at the time of accident the vehicle was being plied in breach of the conditions of Route Permit; the Fitness Certificate of the vehicle was also not valid. 29. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for appellant-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the findings of learned Tribunal that the insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation even if there is breach of permit conditions are contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court delivered in cases, titled as, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, AIR 2003 SC 607 (1); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma, 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 ACJ 1909 (SC) and Ram Kumar v. Nistor Kindo, AIR 2011 Chhattisgarh 126 (DB). 30. The facts of the cases in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma (supra) passed by a 3-Judges Bench of the Apex Court are not applicable to the case in hand because the facts of the said case are altogether different from the case-in-hand. In the said cases the question arose for consideration is whether the Insurer was liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased passengers who were travelling in goods vehicles which met with an accident, whereas, in the present case, the deceased/injured were travelling in a passenger vehicle. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments are not applicable to the case-in-hand. 31. The other cases relied upon by learned counsel for appellant though are on similar issue, but the same have been decided by a 2-Judges Bench of the Apex Court, whereas a 3-Judges Bench of the Apex Court in case, titled as, National Insurance Co. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments are not applicable to the case-in-hand. 31. The other cases relied upon by learned counsel for appellant though are on similar issue, but the same have been decided by a 2-Judges Bench of the Apex Court, whereas a 3-Judges Bench of the Apex Court in case, titled as, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 01, has already settled the law on similar issue, which presumably could not be brought to the notice of their Lordships in those cases. Be that as it may, in view of the categorical law laid down by a larger Bench in Swaran Singh's case (supra), the view expressed by a 2-Judges Bench holds less weight. Generally the decision/principles laid down by a larger Bench are to be followed, as the same carry more weight, having more effect and high persuasive value. 32. The case before this Court is not a case where there was no Route Permit at all, therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle was being plied without a route permit. Otherwise too, it was the duty of the Insurance Company to prove that at the time of accident the vehicle was being plied without valid Route Permit. RWs Anil Suri and Vidya Sagar, Junior Assistants, RTO Office, Jammu, produced by the Insurance Company, deposed before the learned Tribunal that as per the records of Regional Transport Office, Jammu the offending vehicle was registered in the name of its owner, namely, Subash Chander and its seating capacity was 18. The witnesses did not whisper anything about the validity of Route Permit or that at the time of accident the vehicle was being plied in breach of the Conditions of the Route Permit nor has in cross-examination anything come out regarding the same. The Violation, if any, would not amount to violation of the conditions of the insurance policy and would not give the insurer a defence under section 149(2) of the Act. Otherwise too, the appellant-insurance company has satisfied the award passed under Section 140 of the Act as "No Fault Liability". It is well settled that the initial onus to prove that there is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy is on the insurance company. Therefore, the insurance company was required to establish the said breach by leading cogent evidence. It is well settled that the initial onus to prove that there is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy is on the insurance company. Therefore, the insurance company was required to establish the said breach by leading cogent evidence. Since it has failed to prove the same, it cannot be absolved of its liability. In the given circumstances, I do not find any reason to take a view other than the one taken by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on this issue are also upheld. 33. The last and third ground taken by the appellant-Insurance Company is that the offending vehicle was grossly overloaded at the time of accident as it was carrying more than 40 passengers against the seating capacity of 19 persons including the driver and cleaner. 34. To substantiate this plea, appellant-Insurance Company examined four witnesses in all the claim petitions. First one was R.W. Sukhdev Singh, who deposed that he investigated the case in FIR No. 17/2007 and during investigation found that the seating capacity of offending vehicle was 19, but 20 persons died in the said accident and 20 more got injured. He further deposed that the accident was the rash and negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle, overloading was also one of the main causes of accident. R.W. Anil Suri deposed that as per the records of Regional Transport Office, Jammu the offending vehicle was registered in the name of its owner, namely, Subash Chander and its seating capacity was 18. The third one was R.W. Sneh Bhagat, who deposed that the vehicle was insured for only 17 passengers including the Driver and Conductor. R.W. Vidya Sagar also deposed that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 18. 35. Thus, the stand of the insurance company is that the offending vehicle was grossly overloaded at the time of accident as it was carrying more than 40 persons, whereas only 17 passengers were insured and it cannot be compelled to meet the award beyond the contract of insurance itself. 36. As per the records of learned Tribunal with respect to these claim petitions, the vehicle under its Route Permit was permitted to carry only 17 passengers in accordance to its sitting capacity. 36. As per the records of learned Tribunal with respect to these claim petitions, the vehicle under its Route Permit was permitted to carry only 17 passengers in accordance to its sitting capacity. Thus, the insurance company has undertaken to indemnify the insured only to the extent of sitting capacity of the vehicle, if there are no violations or breach of conditions of the insurance policy. 37. Heroine appeals are with respect to thirteen claim petitions only, which means there were thirteen victims of the said accident, out of whom eight have died and five are injured. It is not being spelled out from the records as to whether any other victim of the said accident had sought compensation. Admittedly, the vehicle was insured for 17 persons and only 13 were before the learned Tribunal to seek compensation. Therefore, even if the plea of Insurance Company is accepted that the vehicle was overloaded at the time of accident, yet it cannot escape from its liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants of these thirteen claim petitions as the insurance cover was for 17 persons. Therefore, I find merit in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on this issue also and the same are, accordingly, upheld. 38. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award merits to be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and all these appeals are dismissed. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award in terms of the conditions laid therein. 39. Registry to send down the record of learned Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment. Disposed of along with connected CMA(s), if any.