IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of permit conditions under the Motor Vehicle Act and the liability of the insurance company in a motor accident case.

JUDGMENT

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 [The M.V. Act] assailing the judgment-cum-award dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, Delhi [MACT] in MAC Petition No. 5134/16 titled 'Smt. Seema Vs. Sh. Prem Singh', whereby the learned MACT allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.14,48,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. date of filing of petition till the date of its realization, in favour of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 i.e. LRs./three daughters[There was a 4th daughter who died during the proceedings on 29.05.2017.] of the deceased Ms. Pinki (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants').

2. Further, the appellant and respondents no. 4 and 5 herein, who are the driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle respectively, have been made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and the liability has been fastened upon appellant/HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd, being the insurance company, to deposit the award amount.

BRIEF FACTS

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, Ms. Pinki aged 39 years old and a homemaker, was involved in a motor accident on 03.09.2011 when she was hit by the TATA Tempo 709 bearing No. HR-38C-2182 [Offending Vehicle], owned by Sh. Sanjay Yadav i.e., respondent No. 5, being driven by Sh. Prem Singh Yadav respondent No. 4 (who were arrayed as respondent No. 2 and 1 in the claim petition respectively before the learned MACT). The said vehicle was evidently insured with the appellant/insurance company vide Policy No. 2315200127545800000 having validity from 02.09.2011 to 01.09.2012.

4. Suffice to state that the victim woman succumbed to her injuries on the same day, even before she could be taken to the hospital. The claimants instituted the claim petition on 02.12.2011 under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation under various heads.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED MACT

5. The Learned MACT vide the impugned judgment decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants regarding factum of accident and culpability of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, the claimants were made entitled to compensation with interest as mentioned above.

6. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant/insurance company had contested the liability being fastened upon it and argued that it could not be made liable to pay the said compensation on the ground that there was a fundamental breach of the insurance policy by the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle in a manner that the accident occurred in Delhi while the offending vehicle was licensed to operate only in the State of Haryana, thus implying that the vehicle was not in Haryana at the time of accident. It was urged that the terms of the policy were therefore breached, hence absolving the insurance company of any liability.

7. The Learned MACT, while adjudicating on the said contention, considered the testimony of Sh. Suresh Thakur, Proprietor of Suresh Body Builders, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi as R-2/W-1, who testified that repairs were done on the offending vehicle, and it was on the date of accident when the same was returned to the driver and its owner. The learned Tribunal held that testimony of R-2/W-1 goes onto substantiate the plea of the driver and owner that they were taking the offending vehicle back to Haryana after its repair on the said date and it was not being used to ply passengers in Delhi or operating outside Haryana on the unfortunate day of the accident.

8. The Learned MACT vide paragraph (42) of its order denied the contention raised by the insurance company and held as under: -

"...I am of the considered opinion that the insurance company has failed to prove its plea regarding breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured/R2. It has been established on record that the offending vehicle was being taken back