JUDGMENT : 1. Insurance Company has preferred appeal against the award of compensation in M.V. Claim Case No 58 of 2005 by the District Judge-Cum-MACT Palamau at Daltonganj under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. 2. Claimants are the parents who lost their young son aged 24 years in a motor vehicle accident while returning home from Delhi where he was working in Metro Railways. The accident took place while he was on way from railway station on a bus to his native place. The claimants have attributed the accident to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. 3. A compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- has been awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the M.V. Act). 4. The appeal has been surprisingly preferred on the ground that the Tribunal committed an error by treating the claim application as a claim under Section 163A. The further ground of appeal is that the deceased was travelling at the roof top at the time of accident and the accident took place when he fell down and came under the rear wheel of the bus. 5. The main point for determination in the present appeal is whether the deceased was travelling on the roof top? And whether the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation amount on account of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act? 6. It is not in dispute that the deceased met with the fatal accident while he was travelling by the bus. On Issue No. III the learned Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. Altogether four witnesses have been examined in this case, but none have claimed themselves to be the eye witness to the accident and so their testimony on the manner of accident cannot be accepted. Hariharganj PS case no.120/04 (Ext1) was registered on the basis of the statement of Bira Yadav who has stated that he along with the deceased were travelling on the roof top of the vehicle which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the vehicle. The bus took sharp turn on the way, as a result his nephew fell down and came under its rear wheel. The bus took sharp turn on the way, as a result his nephew fell down and came under its rear wheel. The police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the bus. In the absence of any eye witness account of the accident, the question is whether the FIR can be considered to be evidence on the manner of accident? 7. The nature of enquiry in a motor accident claim tribunal is summary in nature and principles of Evidence Act and CPC do not apply in its absolute rigidity. Bira Yadav the informant of the case, who was the uncle of the deceased was with the deceased at the time of accident could have thrown some light on the manner of accident, but he too has not been examined. In the absence of any other evidence, FIR (Ext 1) which has been relied upon by the claimants themselves can be considered to construct the events that led to the accident. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani, (2009) 2 SCC 75 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 398 : “8. We are not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily an allegation made in the first information report would not be admissible in evidence per se but as the allegation made in the first information report had been made a part of the claim petition, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Tribunal and consequently the appellate courts would be entitled to look into the same”. From the plain reading of the FIR it is manifest that at the relevant time of the accident the deceased on the roof top of the bus which was being driven rashly and negligently. The proximate cause of the accident was not that the deceased was travelling on the roof of the vehicle, but that it was being driven rashly and negligently. It cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. However, permitting the passenger to travel on the roof top was definitely a breach of term and condition of the insurance policy under Section 149(2). 8. It is settled law that breach of terms and condition of insurance policy is a matter between the insurer and the insured. However, permitting the passenger to travel on the roof top was definitely a breach of term and condition of the insurance policy under Section 149(2). 8. It is settled law that breach of terms and condition of insurance policy is a matter between the insurer and the insured. The Insurance Company cannot be completely absolved of its liability to pay the compensation amount, but shall be entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle the amount so paid. Hon’ble Supreme Court in somewhat similar case in Giriraj Prasad Agarwal Vs Parwati Devi and Kalipaharin 2005(3) TAC 115 (Jhar) held that Insurance Company cannot escape liability for carrying of passengers more than covered by policy. The object of Section 147 will be defeated if the Insurance Company is permitted to raise defence of limited liability on the basis of terms of policy. An alleged breach of terms of policy by insured may be an offence under the Act, but surely that does not fall under Section 149 (2) (a) of the M.V. Act. Third party risk, being statutory liability cannot be overridden by terms of contract. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733 : 2004 SCC Online SC 37 at page 342 : (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. 9. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. 9. In this case the breach of terms and condition of the insurance policy took place as the deceased was travelling on the roof of the vehicle. Under the circumstance the appellant Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount within a month of this order and shall be at liberty to recover the amount so paid from the owner of the vehicle. The appeal is partly allowed as at above. The Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw statutory amount.