The absence of a valid fitness certificate for a transport vehicle constitutes a fundamental breach of insurance policy, rendering the owner liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This is owner’s appeal seeking quashment of the award dated 04.03.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 60/2014 whereby the learned Tribunal has fastened the liability upon Non-Applicant No.1 and 2 driver and owner of the vehicle.

2. As against the compensation of Rs.1,22,00,000/- claimed by the claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein) by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) on account of death of the deceased – Ranu Raj Walter @ Sonu occurred in the motor vehicular accident on 04.12.2012, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,86,968/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claim application till its actual payment.

3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held that the accident occurred on 04.12.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. CG-0-J-8045 (in short, ‘the offending vehicle’) by its driver – Prem Singh Chandra, respondent No.5 herein, Ranu Raj Walter @ Sonu, who was aged about 31 years and was working in the H.D.F.C. Bank, has died on account of grievous injuries sustained by him; the insurance company held not liable for payment of compensation as it could establish violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation holding the appellant/owner (non-applicant No.2) along with respondent No.5/driver (non-applicant No.1) liable for payment of compensation.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 04.03.2016, the appellant/owner has preferred this appeal seeking exoneration from liability.

5. Shri Jai Prakash Yadu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/owner would submit that the finding recorded by the Tribunal fixing the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant and exonerating the insurance company/respondent No.6 is contrary to law. He would further submit that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.6/insurance company and there was no breach of any policy conditions by the appellant/owner. Therefore, the insurance company be held liable to pay the compensation.

6. Per contra, Shri Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for respondent No.6/insurance company, while opposing the submission made by the appellant/owner, would submit that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle, being a goods vehicle, was being plied on public road without valid fitness certificate and the appellant / owner could not produce valid fitness certificate. He would further submit that since the appellant/owner has failed to produce the fitness certificate on the date of accident, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held the offending vehicle being driven in contravention of insurance policy and thus, exonerated the insurance company from its liability. He would also submit that absence of a valid fitness certificate for a goods transport vehicle is a fundamental breach of policy condition. In support of his contention, he placed his reliance upon Amrit Paul Singh and Another vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others , (2018) 7 SCC 558 and also on a decision by the Kerala High Court rendered in the matter of Ramankutty and another v. Pareed Pillai and another , 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 3542.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

8. To appreciate the arguments advanced by the parties, first of all I shall focus on the statement of N.A.W.1 - Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, appellant herein. He admitted in his cross-ex