IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of a permit under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act constitutes a statutory infraction, necessitating liability to be established by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since the present batch of two appeals and one revision filed by the Owner of the offending vehicle arises out of the same accident and grounds raised are also common, this Court for convenience sake is inclined to decide the same by this common judgment.

2. MAC No.844/2017 arises out Claim Case No.58/2015 (Keshar Kumar Tandon Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and Others), CR No.130/2017 arises out of Claim Case No.59/2015 (Parshottam Lal Koshley Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and Others) and MAC No.842/2017 has arisen from Claim Case No.60/2015 (Dharmendra Tandon Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and Others).

3. Learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, by impugned Awards dated 8.2.2017, in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.62,928/- to the injured claimant Keshar Kumar Tandon in Claim Case No.58/2015, Rs.5,500/- to the injured claimant Parshottam Lal Koshley in Claim Case No.59/2015 and Rs.4,10,260/- to the injured claimant Dharmendra Tandon in Claim Case No.60/2015 along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of their respective claim application. While passing the impugned Awards, learned Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability for payment of compensation upon the Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Majda bearing Registration No. CG04-JC/0680 which met with an accident on 5.7.2014 resulting in injuries to the aforesaid three claimants, and exonerated the insurer of the said vehicle, i.e., Oriental Insurance Company Limited, from its liability to pay the amount of compensation holding that the offending vehicle was being driven by the driver, Shiv Kumar Yadav, in contravention to the policy conditions and therefore Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited being the owner of the offending vehicle was held liable to pay the amount of compensation, which led to filing of the present appeals and revision by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle.

4. Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/owner, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has deeply erred in holding the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle liable for payment of compensation, as the appellant/owner comes under exception to Section 66 as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (3) to Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore there was no necessity for them to have the permit to use the vehicle. He would thus pray that the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle is liable to be exonerated from the liability fastened upon them to pay the amount of compensation and the appeals and revision be allowed accordingly.

5. Mr. Raj Awasthi, learned Counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, i.e., the insurer of the offending vehicle, would submit that exception to necessity for permits under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act was required to be pleaded and proved by the Owner of the offending vehicle, which has not been pleaded by the appellant/owner either before the Claims Tribunal or in the appeal/revision memo and therefore in light of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, AIR 2018 SC 2662, the impugned Awards holding the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle liable to pay the amount of compensation do not require any interference and the same deserve to be affirmed.

6. None appeared for the claimants.

7. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the Owner as well as Insurer of the offending vehicle, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also perused the record carefully and thoroughly.

8. Admittedly, the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle did not take a specific plea before the Claims Tribunal or in the appeal/revision memo that the offending vehicle was covered under the exception provided in clause (b) of