JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 15th January, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Mandi, HP, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 98 of 2006, titled as Smt. Ganga Devi & another versus Sandeep Thakur & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,45,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 & 2 herein, and against the insurer-insurance company, appellant herein, (for short, “the impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief Facts: 2. The claimants, being victims of the vehicular accident, which was caused on 17.12.2005, at about 10.00 p.m., at Khiuri Tunnel, near I&PH Circle Office, Baggi, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., by driver-cum-owner Sandeep Thakur, respondent No. 3 herein, while driving vehicle-motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-33-A-5927 in a rash or negligent manner; driver-cum-owner-Sandeep Thakur, Narain Saini, the pillion rider and one Dinesh Kumar fell down; sustained injuries and Narain Saini succumbed to the injuries, invoked jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, as per the breaks-up given in the claim petition. 3. It appears that initially, the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”, but later on, an application was filed to amend and convert the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act into claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act, which was granted. Accordingly, the claim petition was amended and converted into claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act. 4. The owner-cum-driver and the insurer-insurance company have resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 5. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 2.4.2008 and 11.9.2009:- “1. Whether Sh. Narian Saini died due to the accident arising out of the use of the motorcycle bearing No. HP-33-A-5927? ….OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount and from whom the petitioners are entitled? …..OPP 3. Whether deceased Narain Saini himself was driving the motorcycle on the date of accident, as alleged? If so, its effect? ….OPR-1 4. Narian Saini died due to the accident arising out of the use of the motorcycle bearing No. HP-33-A-5927? ….OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount and from whom the petitioners are entitled? …..OPP 3. Whether deceased Narain Saini himself was driving the motorcycle on the date of accident, as alleged? If so, its effect? ….OPR-1 4. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? …OPR-I 5. Whether the deceased or respondent No. 1 were not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? …OPR-2. 6. Relief.” 6. Claimants have examined four witnesses and claimant Smt. Ganga Devi appeared in the witness box. Owner Sandeep Thakur also appeared in the witness box. 7. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and scanning the evidence on record, held that the deceased sustained injuries; succumbed to the injuries, in a vehicular accident which was caused by deceased while driving the offending motorcycle, rashly and negligently; the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,45,500/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and saddled the insurer with liability. 8. The claimants and the insured-owner-cum-driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer-Insurance Company has questioned the impugned award on two counts: (i) filing of the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act was not permissible on the ground that Narain Saini, who was allegedly driving the offending motor-cycle was not having the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; (ii) the motor cycle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the insurer-insurance company with liability. This argument of the learned Counsel is devoid of merits for the following reasons: 10. The rules of the pleadings are not strictly applicable, as held by the Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes and others versus Joaquim Xavier Cruz and Another, (2013) 10 SCC 646 . Thus, the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the insurer-insurance company with liability. This argument of the learned Counsel is devoid of merits for the following reasons: 10. The rules of the pleadings are not strictly applicable, as held by the Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes and others versus Joaquim Xavier Cruz and Another, (2013) 10 SCC 646 . It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para-8 of the aforesaid judgment herein:- “In United India Insurance Company Limited V. Shila Datta & Ors. while considering the nature of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a three-judge-bench of this Court has culled out certain propositions of which Propositions (ii), (v) and (vi) would be relevant to the facts of the present case and, therefore, may be extracted hereinbelow: ( SCC p. 518, para 10) “10(ii) The rules of the pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo motu initiated by the Tribunal. (v) ……………………… (vi) ………………………” 11. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”) has gone through a sea change in the year 1994 by amendment in terms of Act 54 of 1994. Amendment was made in Sections 158 and 166 of the MV Act. Subsection (6) has been added to Section 158 of the MV Act, which reads as under: “158. Production of certain certificates, licence and permit in certain cases. (1) ................. (2) ................. (3) ................. (4) ................. (5) ................. (6) As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer.” 12. It provides that it is the duty of the police officer to send a copy of the report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and that report is to be treated as a claim petition in terms of Section 166, sub-section (4), which too was added in terms of the amendment by Act 54 of 1994 in the MV Act. It is apt to reproduce Subsection (4) of Section 166 herein: “166. Application for compensation. (1) .............. (2) .............. (3) .............. (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it sub-section (6) of 158 as an for under this Act.” 13. It is immaterial whether the claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act or Section 166 of the MV Act, for the reason that the aim and object of the provisions of the MV Act is to grant compensation, as early as possible, in order to save claimants from social evils. 14. The deceased has lost his life in the accident. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was not a pillion rider, but was driving the motor cycle at the relevant point of time. There is no cogent evidence on record to prove that the deceased w as driving the motorcycle. The claimants have specifically averred in para-24 of the claim petition that deceased was pillion rider. Respondent No. 3-owner-Sandeep Thakur has not averred in his reply to the aforesaid para of the claim petition that deceased was driving the motorcycle and was not a pillion rider. It is apt to reproduce para 24 of the reply filed by owner-Sandeep Thakur to the claim petition herein:- “24. This para is wrong. In fact the deceased was going from village khiuri to his house. It is wrong that motor cycle was being driven by the replying respondent, in a rash and negligent manner. The motorcycle colluded with perapit because of the reason as a bus from the opposite side was coming and the light of the bus flashed upon the eyes of the driver and therefore, the motorcycle colluded with the perapit. The replying respondent was saved by Mr. The motorcycle colluded with perapit because of the reason as a bus from the opposite side was coming and the light of the bus flashed upon the eyes of the driver and therefore, the motorcycle colluded with the perapit. The replying respondent was saved by Mr. Dinesh Kumar who jumped into the canal and rescued the replying respondent.” While going through the aforesaid paragraph of the reply, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that owner Sandeep Thakur was driving the offending motorcycle on the day of accident; deceased Narain Saini was pillion rider and one Dinesh Kumar tried to save respondent No. 3-Sandeep Thakur. 15. The claimants have specifically averred in their claim petition that owner Sandeep Thakur was driving the motorcycle, but owner Sandeep Thakur in his reply has chosen not to reply as to who was driving the motorcycle nor has denied that he was not driving the motor-cycle. 16. It is beaten law of land that insurer has to plead and prove that the owner of the offending vehicle has committed willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and mere plea here and there cannot be a ground for seeking exoneration. 17. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 . It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the aforesaid judgment, herein: “105. ..................... (i) .................... (ii) ........................ (iii) ………………. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defence(s) 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)......................... (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 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 insured under Section 149 (2) of the Act.” 18. The insurer-insurance company has not led any evidence to prove that the owner has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thus has failed to prove it. 19. Learned Counsel for the insurer-insurance Company argued that owner Sandeep Thakur had handed over the motor cycle at the relevant point of time to the deceased. 20. This argument is not tenable for the reason that even if, owner Sandeep Thakur had handed over the motor cycle to the deceased, who was the third party, but the insured-owner was not in know of the said fact, thus has not committed any breach. 21. It was also for the insurer to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It has not led any evidence to this effect. 22. Having said so, it is held that respondent No. 3Sandeep Thakur was driving the motor cycle at the time of accident and the deceased was pillion rider and findings returned by the Tribunal to that effect are reasoned. 23. It is submitted by learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent 2 has passed away and prayed that entire compensation amount be released in favour of respondent No. 1. Her statement is taken on record. 24. The Registry is directed to release the entire compensation amount in favour of claimant-respondent No. 1, strictly as per the terms and conditions, contained in the impugned award. 25. Accordingly, the appeal is meritless, hence dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 26. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.