An insurer must prove permit violations; unsupported oral testimony cannot establish a policy breach.

The deceased, Lallu Kerketta, died in a collision involving a Hyva truck on 12 November 2019.

His parents and brother brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded them ₹7,84,000 with interest at 7% per annum and held the insurer, driver and owner liable, fastening primary responsibility on the insurer.

The insurer appealed, contending that the truck had no valid permit and that the Tribunal had therefore wrongly imposed liability on it

Whether the insurer proved that the offending vehicle was being operated without a valid permit, in breach of the insurance policy, so as to avoid liability

Whether the Tribunal’s award required interference on that ground

Under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, the party asserting a fact bears the burden of proving it.

An insurer seeking to avoid liability must establish both the defence relied upon and a breach by the insured; even a proved breach will not automatically absolve the insurer unless it is sufficiently fundamental and contributed to the accident.

The Court relied on Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, which discussed and applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal on the insurer’s burden to prove breach

The insurer alleged that the truck lacked a permit, but its witness, an administrative officer, produced neither an RTO certificate confirming the absence of a permit nor a receipt showing that he had applied for one.

The driver and owner stated orally that a permit existed, although they could not locate it.

On this record, the insurer’s oral assertion did not discharge its burden of proving the alleged breach.

The Court therefore upheld the Tribunal’s finding that operation without a valid permit had not been established

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the award of ₹7,84,000 with interest at 7% per annum undisturbed