United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vishan Singh Bhandari & Others

Having heard the rival contentions, the learned counsel of the appellant has agitated the award on the ground that at the time of accident the offending bus, which was owned by Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation, was being plied without any legal/valid permit. Apart from that, it is the established law that once the liability ought to have been fastened upon the owner of the bus then insurer should not be asked to make the payment of the compensation with the recovery rights.

Accident/injury to the petition in such accident as well as the insurance cover of the offending bus is not in the dispute. It has been in the findings of the learned Tribunal that such bus was new one. The manufacturing whereof is 2013 while the permit is submitted by the corporation before the Tribunal was of 1993. At such time when the bus by itself was not in existence then such a permit could not have been used for the offending bus.

This contention of the learned counsel of the appellant has been refuted by the learned counsel of the corporation relying upon the law laid down by the Divisional Bench of the Hon''ble Allahabad High Court

'' Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mamta Devi & Others '' 2015 (4) T.A.C. 367 (All.) wherein it was held that route whereon the bus was being plied if notified then the operation of the Government bus was not illegal for want of any valid permit.

In view of this court as well, the whole territory of Uttarakhand is a notified area for plying the state owned corporation buses, notwithstanding such bus is under the ownership of even other person but have been hired by the corporation for being plied. The law has been made more clear by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kulsum & others (2011) 8 SCC Page 142 wherein it was held:

"14. The aforesaid two issues are no longer res integra. The Hon''ble Apex court in the case of U.P. State Raod Transport Corporation v. Kulsum & Others, (2011) 8 SCC 142 :2011 (4) T.A.C. 15 has held that where the vehicle is given on hire by the owner of the vehicle together with its existence and running insurance policy in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation. Though for all practical purposes for the relevant period, the hirer becomes the owner of the vehicle for the original owner, it will be deemed that the vehicle is transferred along with the insurance policy in existence to the hirer and thus the Insurance Company would not be escaped from its liability to pay amount of compensation. It has further been observed that the liability to pay compensation is based on statutory provision and the liability of the owner to have compulsory insurance is only in regard to the third party and not to the property. Once the vehicle is insured the owner as well as any person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner. Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not provide that any person who use the vehicle independently a separate insurance policy should be taken."

Further, the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Regional Transport Authority MR 1998 SC Page 3110 has held: 15. With regard to the issue of necessary permit, the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority, M.R . 1998 S.C. 3110, has held that renewal of permits of Corporation is not necessary during the subsistence of scheme in respect of notified routes/areas. In paragraph 9 it has been held as under: "A combined reading of Sections 68-B, 68-F (1-E) and Rule 10 (supra) shows that in so far as notified routes are concerned, for which the Corporation has an exclusive right to ply their vehicles under the scheme framed under the Act, the duration of the permit obtained by the Corporation for plying those vehicles is conterminous with the life of the scheme. Sub-clause (4) of Rule says, "the permit issued as aforesaid shall remain valid till the scheme in force."

This identical matter was also before the Hon''ble Delhi High Court in MACP No. 51/2013 ''Anuj & Others vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Others'' where the accident of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation bus occurred with a motorcyclist in Gaziabad, then in claim petition presented, it was held that if the valid permit had been issued in favour of the corporation bus in respect of the notified areas and notified routes then the insurer cannot be exonerated from owing the liability to satisfy the award. 7. In view of what has been set forth above, I feel there is no force in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.