JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi,J. - This appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge an award dated 19.04.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala. 2. Brief facts are as under: On 11.03.2014 at about 7.30 p.m. one Krishna Paul was crossing the road at Teliamura when a commercial motor vehicle insured by the appellant-insurance company collided with the pedestrian causing fatal injuries. His dependents, therefore, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs) from the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,45,000/- to the claimants. The Tribunal noted that the vehicle at the time of accident was insured by the appellant-insurance company. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the insurance company was liable to satisfy the award. 3. In this appeal, the insurance company disputes its liability to satisfy the award on the grounds that the insured had neither produced the certificate of fitness of the vehicle, nor produced the route permit. According to the insurance company, the vehicle was not travelling along the route on which the permit was issued and, therefore, there was a breach of the condition of the insurance policy. The insurance company has not disputed the accident, involvement of the vehicle in question in such an accident, not challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the vehicle was negligent in causing the accident, nor the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. In short, the sole ground pressed in appeal is that for the failure of production of vehicle fitness certificate and route permit the insurance company should be absolved from its liability to satisfy the award. 4. Such a contention needs to be summarily rejected. In the written statement filed by the insurance company no such defence was taken. The insurance company did not call upon the owner of the vehicle to produce such documents. Only in cross-examination of the owner, the insurance company asked him about non-production of such documents. Mere cross-examination of a witness on the issue of non-production of documents, cannot be the ground to hold that the owner had breached a condition of the insurance policy. Only in cross-examination of the owner, the insurance company asked him about non-production of such documents. Mere cross-examination of a witness on the issue of non-production of documents, cannot be the ground to hold that the owner had breached a condition of the insurance policy. When the insurance company had not taken any such defence in the written statement, the owner had no duty to produce such documents in order to establish that there was no breach of these conditions of the policy. 5. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 6. Records may be transmitted to the concerned Claims Tribunal.