JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal (FAO No. 52/2010) is directed against the judgment and award dated 1.12.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chamba, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 13 of 2008, titled Partap Singh versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,35,000/-, alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Insurer, driver and claimant have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. The appellant/owner/insured has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling him with the liability. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has rightly discharged the insurance from the liability and saddled the appellant/insured with the liability. The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 4. Admittedly, the vehicle was insured and it was for the insurer to prove the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, has failed to do so. The vehicle was registered and the route permit was issued. The ground projected is that the vehicle was not to be plied in Chamba District, for the reasons that the route permit was not for the said District. The accident has taken place at Barga Morh, District Chamba, H.P. which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Chamba. 5. The plying of the vehicle in the route for which the permit was not issued, cannot be a ground to discharge the insurance from the liability. Even otherwise, the insurer has failed to discharge the onus that how the insured has committed the willful breach. 6. This Court in FAO No. 362 of 2012 titled ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sumitra Devi and others decided on 25.7.2014 has already determined this issue. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the said judgment herein. “10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, the question is legal one and without leading any evidence, the insurer can raise these issues. This argument is devoid of any force for the reason that it was for the insurer to have proved, by leading cogent evidence, that the owner had committed willful breach. “10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, the question is legal one and without leading any evidence, the insurer can raise these issues. This argument is devoid of any force for the reason that it was for the insurer to have proved, by leading cogent evidence, that the owner had committed willful breach. But there is no iota of evidence on the file which would show that the owner was in breach. Thus, the argument cannot be pressed into service. The insurer has also to plead and prove that the cause of accident is the peculiar geographical condition prevailing in the State of Himachal Pradesh, where, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, the vehicle was being plied, at the time of accident, without any route permit. However, there is no evidence to that effect. Accordingly, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves outright rejection.” 7. Having said so, the impugned award is set aside so far as it relates to right of recovery and insurer is to satisfy the award. Ordered accordingly. 8. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in his bank account, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. FAO No. 73/2010 9. In view of the observations made in FAO No. 52/2010, supra, this appeal is dismissed. 10. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.