An unproved Section 161 police statement cannot establish a policy breach without examining its maker.

The deceased died in an accident on 22 January 1999 while travelling in a jeep that crashed after colliding with a tractor-trolley and then a roadside tree. The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal awarded ₹8,28,000 with interest at 9% per annum and held the owner and insurer jointly and severally liable. The insurer appealed, contending that the deceased was a fare-paying passenger and that the jeep’s private-car policy excluded use for hire or reward.

Whether the insurer proved that the deceased was travelling as a fare-paying passenger, in breach of the policy condition restricting the jeep to private use.

Whether the police statement at Exhibit 45 could establish that alleged breach when its maker was not examined before the Tribunal.

Under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an insurer relying on a policy-condition breach must establish the relevant defence; the burden to prove the alleged breach rests on the insurer.

A statement recorded by police during criminal investigation is not substantive evidence in proceedings before a Claims Tribunal unless its maker is produced for examination and subject to cross-examination.

Exhibit 45 was not proved through its maker or the investigating officer, and the insurer called no witness to establish that the deceased paid a fare or that the jeep was being used for hire or reward.

Further, the Court’s reading of Exhibit 45 indicated that the deceased had boarded the jeep as a lift-giver or passerby, not as a fare-paying passenger. The insurer therefore failed to discharge its burden of proving a policy breach, and the Tribunal’s award disclosed no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Registry was directed to return the record and proceedings to the concerned Court, if any.