JUDGMENT : RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. This appeal is by the appellant/insurance company against the award dated 14.10.2014 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri, District: Jashpur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 7 of 2012 awarding total compensation of Rs. 4,62,142.85 (Rupees four lakhs sixty two thousand one hundred forty two and eighty five paisa only), while fastening liability on the non-applicants, being a driver, owner and insurance company (appellant, respondents No. 4 & 5 respectively herein) jointly and severally. 2. As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 28.01.2012, at 04:00 pm, the deceased Yashwant Paikra was coming to his home from Village: Bagbahar, while driving his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 14 M 5431. At that time, the respondent No. 4 who was driving the Truck Tanker bearing registration No. CG 13 ZC 1121 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased received serious injuries and he succumbed to his injuries. At the relevant time, the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.5 herein insured with the appellant/insurance company. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 29,30,000/- under various heads, the learned Tribunal considering the evidence led by the parties, awarded the amount as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the offending vehicle, a truck-tanker, was built for transporting hazardous substances and at the time of the accident, the driver, NA- 3 Sanjay Jha, possessed a driving license authorizing him to drive Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV), but he was not authorized to drive such vehicles carrying hazardous substances like the offending vehicle in question, as there was no endorsement on his license permitting him to drive such vehicles, therefore, the driver was not having valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle carrying hazardous substances, which is a breach of policy conditions, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, the owner of the offending vehicle, submits that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company at the time of the accident. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, the owner of the offending vehicle, submits that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company at the time of the accident. The insurance company in its written statement filed before the Claims Tribunal has neither pleaded that the offending vehicle was transporting hazardous substances nor submitted any evidence on record to prove thereof. Such argument was not taken before the Claims Tribunal and is being raised for the first time in this appeal. Additionally, the insurance company has utterly failed to prove that the offending vehicle was used for transporting dangerous/hazardous substances/goods and it is the bounden duty of the insurance company to establish any breach of policy conditions, which it has categorically failed to do in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. So far as the issue No. 1 framed by the learned Claims Tribunal is concerned, it was answered in affirmative by holding that deceased Yashwant Paikra died on account of vehicular accident caused by driver/respondent No. 4 i.e Sanjay Jha (now died), of offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. 8. It is not disputed that at the time of the accident, the appellant–Insurance Company was the insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was registered in the name of Respondent No. 5 – Rajesh Kumar Goenka and Respondent No. 4 – Sanjay Jha (since deceased) was possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. 9. It is pertinent to note that the appellant–Insurance Company did not examine any witness to establish that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. Even the driver of the offending vehicle was not examined as a witness nor any other witness has been examined on behalf of the insurance company. The final report (Ex. P/1) submitted by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Sanjay Jha, was under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. There is no material on record nor any evidence to suggest that the driver was prosecuted under any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act or that he was not having valid and effective driving license. 10. P/1) submitted by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Sanjay Jha, was under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. There is no material on record nor any evidence to suggest that the driver was prosecuted under any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act or that he was not having valid and effective driving license. 10. Though the final report submitted by the police mentioning that the offending vehicle was a tanker, but there is no evidence on record to show that the said tanker was used for transporting dangerous/hazardous substances/goods. It has also not been proved by the appellant–Insurance Company that any dangerous/hazardous substances/goods was being transported in the vehicle at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the Insurance Company, in its written statement filed before the Claims Tribunal, has not specifically pleaded that the offending vehicle was designed for transporting dangerous/hazardous substances/goods or that the driver lacked the necessary endorsement on his license to drive such a vehicle. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal, after proper appreciation of evidence and consideration of all relevant aspects, rightly held that the appellant–Insurance Company has failed to prove that there was any breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. 11. In view of above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the approach of the Tribunal in passing the impugned award, which do not call for any interference by this Court. 12. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit and substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.