Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (1.) The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherethrough, it, casts, a, challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Una, upon, MAC Petition No. 134 of 2014, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.23,16,300/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 9% per annum, and, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein. On the other hand, the respondent No.3/cross objector also reared crossobjections bearing CO No. 99 of 2018, against, the impugned award.
(2.) The learned tribunal, had, upon meteing reliance, upon a judgment of this Court rendered in a case titled as Ketal Singh v.s Bhag Devi and others, 2015 5 ILR(HP) 1263, (a) wherein it stands expostulated qua (i) where, the, insurer has not led any evidence, and, rather has failed to prove, that, the offending vehicle stood plied, in violation of the route permit, and, hence, infringed the terms, and, conditions, as, contained in the apposite insurance policy, (ii) thereupon, concluded qua hence the afore ground, being not, a befitting exculpatory espousal, available for the insurer of the offending vehicle, (iii) and, the learned tribunal hence concluded, that, since the insurer was enjoined to plead, and, also enjoined to prove, that, the cause of the accident, is, a sequel of the peculiar geographical condition, prevailing in the State of H.P., where, the ill-fated accident took place, and, for hence in the impermissible plying, of, the ill-fated vehicle, within, the territory of the Himachal Pradesh, hence, occurred willful breach of the terms, and, conditions of the insurance policy. Reiteratedly, hence, for want, of, adduction, of, cogent proof by the insurer, that, in the plying of the offending vehicle, in a territory, in respect whereof, it held no valid permit to ply, hence, there being willful breach of the terms, and, conditions of the insurance policy, (iv) thereupon, rather the learned tribunal hence concluded, that, the tests contemplated, in, the afore judgment rather standing not satiated, and, hence fastened, the, apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle.
(3.) The afore reasons, as, formed by the learned tribunal, stood, contested by the learned counsel appearing, for the insurer herein, by his placing reliance, upon, a judgment of this Court, rendered in a case titled as J.B. Pipes versus Madan Lal and others, 2008 ACJ 574, (a) wherein this Court while placing reliance, upon, a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, had, concluded that the mere plying of the offending vehicle concerned, in a territory or area, in respect whereof, no valid route permit stands issued, rather ipso facto hence constituting violation of the terms, and, conditions of the insurance policy, (b) and, hence, no pleadings being enjoined to be reared, in proof thereof, and, also not enjoining adduction, of, evidence in respect thereof.;