AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kannan, J.—The Insurance Company is in appeal contending that there had been a violation of terms of permit in plying the vehicle at the place which had been not authorized to ply. The contention is that this constitutes a violation of terms of policy. The defence which is permissible u/s 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act is with reference to the user of the vehicle for a purpose not allowed by the permit (emphasis supplied). The purpose of permit is referred under the terms of permit u/s 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The term may contain several other features such as the place where it will be operative. However, the term that is relevant as constituting a violation of permit shall be restricted only to the purpose of the permit. Consequently a permit that is necessary for user as a transport vehicle cannot make an Insurance Company liable if the user as a transport vehicle is provided by the expiry of the terms or there existed no permit. A violation of any other term than the purpose for which the permit was to operate will not be a defence which will be available in the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Others, . The Supreme Court was dealing with a situation of a vehicle which required a transport vehicle permit was being put to such use without any permit. This constituted of violation of terms of policy with regard to the purpose for which the permit was necessary. This makes the difference which the insurance Company fails to comprehend. There are several judgments to support this view and it is unfortunate that the Insurance Company makes it point to come up on appeal on similar plea now and then. The appeal is dismissed.