Deviation from the permit route does not absolve the insurance company from liability if the vehicle was used for its intended purpose.

Judgment :

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.)

1. The appellants have challenged the award dated 30.01.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kabirdham in Claim Case No. 9/2019, whereby the claim case filed by the claimants was partly allowed, and an award of Rs.7,50,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim case against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle was passed, however, the learned tribunal exonerated the insurance company/respondent No.3.

2. Facts of the present case are as under:-

A. On 10.12.2018, at about 2.45 PM, when the deceased Tikeshwar was going on his scooty to Singhania Petrol Pump, Sahaspur Lohara, the offending vehicle (Bus) bearing registration No. CG-08-B-5069 driven by appellant No.2 (driver) dashed the scooty of the deceased. Consequently, the deceased fell down on the road, sustained serious injuries and died on the spot.

B. The claimants filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( MV Act ) claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.10.50 lakhs. They pleaded that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 17 years old and he was a student of class 12th.

C. The insurance company as well as the owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their reply.

D. The appellants took a specific plea that the offending bus was returning from Kawardha after repair work. It was also stated that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3- insurance company and the driver had a valid driving license. It is also stated that the deceased himself was negligent.

E. The insurance company took a plea that the offending vehicle was being driven contrary to the permit. As the permit was granted to ply the offending vehicle (bus) from Chichka to Raipur via Khairagarh, Dhamdha and Rajnandgaon, therefore, there was no reason to send the offending vehicle to Kawardha for repair.

F. The learned tribunal framed issues; the parties led their evidence, and after appreciation of documentary and oral evidence, passed the award.

3. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that there was some problem in the vehicle, therefore, it was sent to Kawardha for repair. He would further submit that the appellants, in their evidence, have specifically deposed about the same. He would further contend that the document with regard to the repair of the offending vehicle was not filed before the learned Tribunal, therefore, a receipt issued by the mechanic has been filed along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. He would also contend that the learned tribunal committed an error of law by fastening liability upon the driver and owner, and further by exonerating the insurance company. He would pray to allow the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and to set aside the award passed against the appellants. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Sannabalaiah; Yerramma; Rathnamma; Krishnamurthy; Raghu; V. Sujatha versus V. Sujatha; Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd; Sannabalaiah; reported in 2022 lawsuit (Kar) 3369 to buttress his submission.

4. Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsiyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company would submit that there was no reason to send the offending vehicle Kawardha for repair work. He would contend that from Chhuikhadan, the distance of Kawardha is about 60 km. whereas the distance of Khairagarh is 12 km. He would contend that the service station was available at Khairagarh, but the offending vehicle, as stated by the appellants, was sent to Kawardha and thus, the defense taken by the appellants is an afterthought.

He would also contend that the vehicle had the permit to ply from Chichka to Raipur and there was a deviation from the route, therefore, the learned tribunal rightly exonerated the insurance company and fastened the liability with the appellants. He placed reliance