ORDER : 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against award dated 29.6.2016 passed by 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Case No.45 of 2014, whereby the Claims Tribunal has passed the award of Rs.4,18,800 in favour of the Claimants/Respondents 1 and 2 and fastened liability to satisfy the award on the proprietor/owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., the Appellant. 2. Claimants/Respondents 1 and 2 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that on 1.12.2013 driver of the offending vehicle/Respondent 3 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and all of a sudden one tyre of the vehicle got punctured and the vehicle lost its control and turned down. At that time, Bhuneshwar Prasad Rajwade was sitting in the vehicle and due to the accident he sustained injuries and died on the way to hospital. It is further pleaded that the vehicle was a demo car which was coming from Vishrampur to Ambikapur after giving demo/test drive of the car to one customer. The Appellant was the registered owner of the said demo car. 3. The driver of the offending vehicle/Respondent 3 filed his written statement and denied all the allegations levelled on him. It was especially pleaded by him that he was having a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was insured with Respondent 4/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. Hence, if any liability arises to pay compensation that should be fastened on Respondent 4. 4. The insurance company/Respondent 4 also filed its written statement and denied all the allegations levelled on it. It was especially pleaded by the insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective licence and the vehicle was running contrary to the insurance policy, i.e., running beyond the radius of 80 kms. from its registered address. 5. The Claims Tribunal framed issues and after recording evidence partly allowed the claim petition and passed the impugned award of Rs.4,18,800 holding that there was a breach of the insurance policy that the offending vehicle was running beyond the radius of 80 kms. from its registered address and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and the liability to satisfy the award is of the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., the Appellant. Hence, the instant appeal. 6. from its registered address and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and the liability to satisfy the award is of the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., the Appellant. Hence, the instant appeal. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is the authorised dealer of Hyundai Cars in the districts of Korba and Ambikapur (Surguja). The offending vehicle was a demo car and on the date of accident also the said demo car was returning from Vishrampur after giving test drive/demo to one customer. It was further submitted that though Respondent 4/insurance company in its written statement pleaded that the offending vehicle was running beyond the radius of 80 kms. from its registered address, the insurance company has not produced any inquiry/investigation report nor has led any other documentary or oral evidence in this regard to show that the distance between the place of accident and the registered address mentioned in the insurance policy is more than 80 kms. Despite that, the Claims Tribunal only on the presumptions arrived at the conclusion that the said distance is more than 80 kms. from the address mentioned in the insurance policy. Thus, the above finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is not correct. Since the vehicle was insured with Respondent 4/insurance company and the insurance company has not proved any breach of the insurance policy, the liability to pay compensation would be of the insurance company only. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent 4/insurance company submitted that the ground of the distance being beyond 80 kms. has not been taken by the Appellant in the memo of appeal preferred before this Court and, therefore, the Appellant has no right to take this ground at this stage. It was further submitted that a judicial note can also be taken that the place of accident was far away from Korba, i.e., the registered address of the offending vehicle and the distance of the registered address from the place of accident is about 200 kms. Since the vehicle was running beyond 80 kms. from the radius of the registered address, there was an apparent breach of the insurance policy and the Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from liability to pay compensation. 8. Since the vehicle was running beyond 80 kms. from the radius of the registered address, there was an apparent breach of the insurance policy and the Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from liability to pay compensation. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 (Claimants) neither supported nor opposed the arguments raised by Learned Counsel for the Appellant. 9. I have heard the contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 10. The main contention raised on behalf of the Appellant was that the insurance company has failed to establish that the distance between the place of accident and the registered address of the offending vehicle is more than 80 kms. Despite that, the Claims Tribunal only on the basis of presumptions arrived at the conclusion that the place of accident is more than 80 kms. from the registered address of the offending vehicle. Though this specific ground has not been mentioned in the memo of appeal by the Appellant, grounds No.3 and 4 mentioned in the memo of appeal cover the issue. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for Respondent 4/insurance company on this point. 11. Undisputedly, the Appellant is the authorised dealer of Hyundai Cars in the districts of Korba and Ambikapur. There is also no dispute on the point that the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent 4 and according to the entries of the insurance policy (Ex.D1) term No.3 thereof mentions that the radius cover is upto 80 kms. from the address mentioned in the insurance policy and it should be exclusively driven by the insured’s employee/authorised driver only. Undisputedly, Respondent 3 was the authorised driver of the Appellant. The registered address of the Appellant mentioned in Ex.D1 is Modi Road, Korba and the place of accident was between Vishrampur and Ambikapur. The specific defence taken by the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal was that the distance of the place of accident from the registered address of the Appellant, i.e., Modi Road, Korba is more than 80 kms. However, the insurance company has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the said distance is more than 80 kms. The insurance company only examined its Law Officer Rishabh Pandey as Witness No.1. However, the insurance company has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the said distance is more than 80 kms. The insurance company only examined its Law Officer Rishabh Pandey as Witness No.1. This witness of the insurance company admitted the fact that no investigation report was filed by the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal. Without there being any investigation report of the insurance company or any other supportive documentary evidence of the insurance company, only on the basis of oral statement of Rishabh Pandey it cannot be said that the distance in question is more than 80 kms. Without any documentary evidence available on record, the Claims Tribunal, only on the basis of presumptions, has held that the distance in question is more than 80 kms. This finding is not in accordance with the evidence available on record. Even if for the sake of argument it is considered that the distance in question is more than 80 kms., this breach cannot be termed as a fundamental breach. Considering the entire evidence available on record, it is well established that though a specific pleading was made by the insurance company that the distance in question is more than 80 kms., the insurance company has failed to establish this fact. Since the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent 4/insurance company and the insurance company has been unable to prove any breach of the insurance policy, in considered view of this Court, the insurance company only is liable to satisfy the impugned award and pay the compensation to the Claimants/Respondents 1 and 2. 12. In the result, the instant appeal moved by the owner of the offending vehicle is allowed. It is directed that the insurance company/Respondent 4 shall satisfy the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal and pay the compensation to the Claimants.