IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of a permit for goods vehicles with a gross vehicle weight less than 3000 Kilograms cannot be treated as a violation of policy conditions under Section 66(3)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

Both these appeals are arising from OP(MAC) 424/2011 on the files of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirur. The said claim petition was submitted by the claimants who are the appellants in MACA No.2534/2012, seeking compensation for the death of one Naveed due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 25/02/2010.

2. The 1st and 2nd appellants are the parents of the deceased, whereas the other appellants are his siblings. According to the appellants/claimants,the accident occurred when the motor cycle ridden by the deceased was hit by goods Auto Rickshaw. As a result of the same, he sustained serious injuries and he was taken to Santhi Hospital and from there to Amala Hospital, Thrissur. While undergoing treatment, he passed away. The deceased was aged 21 years at the time of the accident and he was employed as a Sales Executive at Born Marrow Event Management, Poonkunnam, Thrissur with a monthly income of Rs.6000/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances for seeking compensation.

3. The 3rd respondent in the claim petition, the insurer of the said good auto rickshaw, filed a written statement admitting valid insurance coverage for the said vehicle. However, it was contented that the said goods auto rickshaw did not have a valid permit to ply through the public road, and hence a contention of violation of policy conditions was raised.

4. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and as documentary evidence Ext. A1 to A13 were marked. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondent in the claim perdition.

5. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw, and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent in the claim petition was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.2,96,300/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent-insurer with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with a cost of Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal also found that there was violation of policy conditions at the instance of the registered owner of the said vehicle, as the goods auto rickshaw was being plied without a valid permit. Therefore, the 3rd respondent/insurer was permitted to recover the compensation from the 1st and 2nd respondents in the claim petition, after satisfaction of the award. MACA 2537/2012 was filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas, MACA 37/2022 was filed by the 1st respondent in the claim petition, the registered owner of the goods vehicle, challenging the order permitting the 3rd respondent insurer, to recover the compensation from him and the 2nd respondent in the claim petition.

6. Heard Sri.C.M.Muhammed Iquabal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the claim petition, the appellants in MACA 2534/2012, Smt.Dhanya P. Ashokan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the appellant in MACA 37/2022, Sri.A.R.George, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent in the claim petition, the insurer of the goods auto rickshaw in MACA 2534/2012 and Sri.Jacob Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the insurer in MACA 37/2022.

7. As the 1st respondent/registered owner raised a challenge against the right of recovery granted to the insurer, the said question has to be considered first. In this appeal, the specific contention raised by the appellant/1st respondent is that, considering the nature of the goods vehicle, the permit is not a mandatory requirement. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent brought the attention of this Court to Section 66(3)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 66(1) deals with the necessity of permits, whereas Section 66(3) contemplates the situations where the stipulations in sub-section (1) of the Section 66 shall not be applicable. Among the circumstances mentioned in Sub Secti