and, therefore, insurance company is not bound to prove terms and conditions of insurance policy. Offending vehicle was a transport vehicle and driver was not holding authorization to drive a transport vehicle on the date of accident. Vehicle is also stated to have been driven without any route permit and fitness certificate, and that is the reason that police registered case under Sections 56/192, 39/192, 190 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act. All these sections of Motor Vehicles Act prohibit owner to bring transport vehicle on road at a public place without a route permit and fitness certificate. And the said violations also exonerate appellant Insurance Company from any liability arisen under the policy of insurance. Framing of charges for violation of these sections of Motor Vehicles Act was sufficient to exonerate appellant insurance company from any liability. The Tribunal is stated to have not dealt with the status of deceased in offending vehicle properly. The deceased was travelling as passenger in offending vehicle. Though offending vehicle was a transport vehicle meant for carrying load and not for carrying passenger, the Tribunal has presumed deceased to be owner of goods. There is no direct evidence on record to show that deceased was travelling as owner of goods in Tata Mobile, the offending vehicle. Therefore, finding returned on this point is stated to be bad in law and fixation of liability on the appellant is contrary to law and deserves to be set-aside. It is also contended by counsel for appellant Insurance Company that respondent no.6 as owner of the offending vehicle had allowed the deceased to travel in the goods vehicle as gratuitous passenger and for which the policy of insurance does not provide the cover. The finding, therefore, is contrary to law laid down in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and deserves to be set-aside.
