Deviation from a permit route can be excused under compelling circumstances, thus not absolving insurance liability in accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

1. Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up together for final disposal.

2. MFA Nos.101342/2017 (MVC No.173/2014) and 101341/2017 (MVC No.172/2014) are filed by the claimants/injured seeking enhancement of compensation. Whereas MFA Nos.101568/2017 (MVC No.172/2014) and 101569/2017 (MVC No.173/2014) are filed by the owner of bus, questioning the liability fastened on it.

3. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 24.01.2017 passed in MVC Nos.173/2014 and 172/2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Haveri (for short ‘Tribunal’).

4. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that on 21.01.2014 around 11.45 a.m., the claimant- Ganesh S/o Shankrappa Kumachagi (MVC No.172/2014) was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/Q-9748 along with another claimant-Basavaraj S/o Karabasappa Sajjan (MVC No.173/2014) as a pillion rider from Mudur to Haveri. When they came near sugar factory of Sangur village, at that time, a private bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313, being driven by its driver, came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the aforesaid motorcycle. Due to the which, both the claimants, who were rider and pillion rider, fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, they filed aforesaid claim petitions seeking compensation.

5. Upon the claim petitions filed by the claimants, the Tribunal has awarded compensation, but fastened liability on the owner of bus, on the reason that, the bus has travelled on the route other than the permitted route, thereby violated permit conditions. Therefore, the Tribunal has fastened liability on the owner of bus.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Regarding violation of conditions of policy due to permit:

7. The appellant/owner has two buses bearing registration Nos.KA-14/A-1313 and KA-14/A-7144. Admittedly, both the buses have ‘permit’ to move on routes specified in the permit. The bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313 was having route permit from Shivamogga to Hangal. Whereas, the bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A-7144 was having route permit from Dasanakoppa to Haveri. The owner of bus has engaged service of bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A- 7144 from Dasanakoppa to Haveri, but it got repaired on enroute of the bus. Therefore, the owner has engaged another bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313 as a relief vehicle from Shivamogga to Haveri. The said bus while returning from Haveri to Shivamogga, dashed the motorcycle of the claimants. Due to which, the claimants’ sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, upon the claim petitions filed by the claimants, the Tribunal has awarded compensation and fastened liability on the owner of bus on the reason that the owner of bus engaged another bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313 as a relief vehicle, which was having permit from Shivamogga to Hangal only, but was travelled beyond the Hangal, which is not permitted as per permit. Hence, there is violation of conditions of policy as the bus plied in the route other than the permitted route. Thus, fastened liability on the owner of bus.

8. The Tribunal applying Section 66 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short ‘Act, 1988’), has observed that the bus did not have permit to travel up to Haveri and the bus had permit to travel from Shivamogga to Hangal only. Hence, formed opinion that there is violation of Section 66 of the Act, 1988.

9. While considering the factual scenario involved in the case, what was the compel