The breach of the condition under S.149(2)(a)(i)(c) should relate to the use of the vehicle for a purpose not allowed by the permit, and overloading does not constitute a breach under this provision if the vehicle was being used for the purpose allowed by the permit.

K.K. Usha, J.

These appeals arise out of a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P. (M.V.) Nos. 474, 551, 621, 477,622, 552, 620, 479, 553, 623,504,476,889,550,860 and 475 of 1990. Along with the above petitions one more claim petition was disposed of by the Tribunal i.e. O.P. (M.V.) 478/90, which is not appealed against. The appeals are at the instance of the Insurance Company, who was the insurer of a jeep with registration Number KLL 4862 which was involved in an accident on 17.12.1989. Seventeen persons were carried in the vehicle at the time of the accident. Three among them died and the remaining passengers sustained injuries. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep who was impleaded as the first respondent in the petitions. The 2nd respondent was the owner and 3rd respondent, the insurer of the jeep.

2. A contention was raised on behalf of the 3rd respondent that it is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent i.e. the insured in this case as there was a breach of a specified condition of the policy. According to the Insurance Company, the vehicle which had permit to carry only six passengers including the driver, was carrying seventeen persons at the time of the accident and it would amount to a breach of specified condition of the policy i.e. one coming under S.149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1997. The Tribunal rejected the contention raised by the Insurance Company that it is absolved from the liability to pay compensation to the passengers carried in the vehicle. On the other hand, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to each of the claimants reserving the Insurance Company's right to realise the excess amount paid by it under the contract of insurance as provided under S.149(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act from the owner of the jeep involved in the accident. The only contention raised in these appeals by the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has erred in finding that there was no violation of condition coming under Clause (c) as mentioned above. The relevant portion of S.149 reads as follows:

"149. Duty of insureres to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.

XXX XXX XXX XXX

(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-s (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice, of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:

(a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:

(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle.

XXX XXX XXX XXX

(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle", or

3. The above would show that the Insurance Company will be absolved if the vehicle involved in the accident was being used for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used where the vehicle is a transport vehicle. In the facts of this case, admittedly the jeep is a taxi having permit to carry passengers. Then the only question is whether carrying more passengers that the number permitted would make it use for a 'purpose' other that the purpose for which the permit is granted.

4. A mere reading of the provisions of clause (c) of S.149(2)(a)(i) would show that there is no merit in the contention raised by the Insurance Company. The breach of the condition should be one relating to the use of the vehicle for a purpose not allowed by the perm