AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT
P. R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ
Both these appeals have been preferred at the instance of the owner of the Bus bearing No. C.G.-04 E 1057 against the common Award dated
30.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon (hereinafter referred as 'the
Tribunal') in Claim Case Nos. 35/2010 and 36/2010. The grievance is with regard to the fixation of liability upon the Appellant, exonerating the Insurer,
for the reason that there was no valid 'permit' for the Bus on the date of accident i.e. on 06.02.2010.
The factual position disclosed from the proceedings is that, on 06.02.2010, the claimants by name Santosh Kumar (Rider) {R-1 in MAC
No.858/2012} and Yatipal (Pillion Rider) {R-1 in MAC No.509/2013) were proceeding on Motorcycle 4S Champion Boxer, allegedly for attending a
marriage ceremony. On their way, when the Motorcycle reached the place of occurrence, the Bus bearing No. C.G.- 04 E 1057 owned by the
Appellant, driven by 2nd Respondent - Geetaram and insured by the 3rd Respondent coming from the opposite knocked them, which led to the claim
petitions preferred by the Rider and the Pillion Rider.
The claim was sought to be resisted on the various grounds. The Insurance Company specifically pleaded that there is no valid permit on the date of
accident and as such, there cannot be any liability for the Insurer to satisfy the claim. This was sought to to be substantiated by causing to produce Ex-
D/1 Permit, Ex-D/2 Register and Ex-D/2(c) a photocopy of D/2. A witness Teejram (DW-1) was also sought to be examined in this regard. After
hearing both the sides and analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only because of the negligence on the
part of the Driver of the Bus. The compensation was fixed under various heads, granting a total sum of Rs. 1,09,974/- in the case of the Rider
involved in Claim Case No.35/2010 and a total sum of Rs.1,18,941/- in the case of Pillion Rider involved in Claim Case No.36/2010. The said amounts
were directed to be satisfied with interest of 6% per annum by the Driver and the Owner of the Bus bearing No. C.G.-04 E 1057; whereas the
Insurance Company was spared, holding that there was no valid permit to shift the liability to the shoulders of the Insurer. This made the Owner of the
Bus to feel aggrieved, who is before us with two separate appeals as mentioned above in respect of the claims preferred by the Rider and Pillion
Rider.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and for the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company. We have perused the relevant records as
well.
On going through the pleadings and proceedings, the case of the Appellant-Owner of the Bus bearing No. C.G.-04 E 1057 appears to be that the
Appellant-Owner had remitted necessary fees/charges for obtaining the 'permit' before the date of accident, but the 'permit' came to be issued only
later, w.e.f. 09.02.2010. In support of the said contention Annexure-A/3 in MAC No.858/2012 and Annexure-A/4 in MAC No.509 of 2013 have been
produced.
The learned counsel for the Insurance Company points out that the evidence brought on record before the Tribunal clearly reveals that the 'permit'
was issued by the Competent Authority only for the period from 09.02.2010 to 28.02.2010. It is also pointed out that the necessary payment for getting
the 'permit' was effected by the Appellant-Owner only on 08.02.2010, which led to granting of the 'permit' from 09.02.2010 till 28.02.2010.
On going through the case put up by the Appellant in the present appeal, the main ground taken under Ground No. 9.2 is that a sum of Rs.7,000/-
was deposited under the head of 'road tax' on 01.02.2010, where the payment for getting the 'permit' is not mentioned. That apart, the contention
under Ground No.9.4 is that the Tribunal ought to have held that on the date of issuance of the insurance policy, there was a valid permit and as such
it was enough so as to mulct the liability upon the Respondents. We find it difficult to accept the said proposition. The law is well settled by the verdict
passed by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Challa Bharathamma and Others (2004) 8 SCC 517 ,that absence of valid
permit is a statutory defence available to the Insurer under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'MV Act') and
that in the absence of valid permit, no liability can be mulcted upon the shoulders of the Insurance Company.
In the instant case, there is no case for the Appellant that 'valid permit' was available on 06.02.2010. The Appellant's case is only that payment for
granting the Permit was effected before the date of accident; but this is not sufficient to hold that the Permit was to be deemed as in existence on the
date of remittance of the fee. Permit is to issued by the Competent Authority in terms of the relevant provisions of the MV Act / Rules and the
evidence adduced before the Tribunal clearly shows that it was having the validity only from 09.02.2010 till 28.02.2010. This means, the vehicle was
being operated on the relevant date i.e. on 06.02.2010 without having a valid permit. The said aspect has been discussed in detail by the Tribunal in
paragraphs 15,16 & 17 of the Award which are to the following effect :
’’15. . -3
. . .( -3 .. -1) . . ..
-04/ -1057 (1) (2) ( 2 )
, . 09.02.2010
28.02.2010 2 ’’ ’’
750.00 08.02.2010 ’ ’
’’ 7,000.00 ,
. . . -2 ( -2 -1) -
-04/ -1057 5-6
...
...
,
. . .
- -04/-1057 09.02.2010 28.02.2010
-2 ( -2
-1) . . ( -3 -1)
( 1) ..
09.02.2010 .. 28.02.2010 (2)
( 2) ,
,
( ..-.3 -1)
. .. -4 , ,
2010 . .
. . 7,000.00 01.02.2010
, 7,000.00 019038 01.02.2010
00
. . ..
(1) ( 2) 09.02.2010 28.02.2010
06.02.2010
...
- 2011
, 126 7
06.02.2010
’’9. After considering all the relevant aspects as above, we do not require any second thought to hold that the verdict passed by the Tribunal,
exonerating the Insurance Company and fixing the liability only upon the Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle, is perfectly within the four walls
of law and it does not require any interference.
The appeals are devoid of any merit. They are dismissed accordingly.