The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to claimants in the absence of a valid permit for the vehicle at the time of the accident.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Both the misc. appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence same are being decided together.

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 436/2018

2. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 09.10.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court, Community Riots), Jaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Claim Case No. 202/2015 by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents has been allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 9,69,728/- to the claimants-respondents.

3. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the vehicle in question was purchased by the owner on 31.08.2011 and the same was registered by the Transport Department on 12.09.2011. Counsel submits that the accident occurred on 19.11.2011 and at the time of accident, the owner of the vehicle was not having permit to play the vehicle. Counsel further submits that after verification from the Transport Department, a certificate was issued which indicates that the vehicle in question was given permit to ply the same on record with effect from 07.05.2012 to 06.05.2017. Counsel also submits that these documents were available on the record, but the Tribunal has not considered the same and fastened liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants-respondents. Counsel submits that in spite of service of notices upon the driver and owner, they did not appear before the Tribunal, as a result of which ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them. Counsel submits that even before this Court also, the driver and owner have remained ex-parte.

4. Counsel submits that as per the judgment of Delhi High Court delivered in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Devi Deen & Ors., and another connected matter (MAC.APP.665/2013 with MAC.APP.666/2013) decided on 25.05.2016, the onus of Insurance Company stands discharged after submissions of the relevant documents on record and now the onus shifts upon the driver and owner to prove that whether they were having any valid permit to ply the vehicle. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, findings recorded by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and submits that no document was produced by the appellant-Insurance Company that on the date of accident, the vehicle was having any permit or not? Counsel submits that no witness from the Department of Transport was produced in the witness box by the appellant-Insurance Company, hence the Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount to the claimants-respondents.

6. Heard and considered the arguments raised by the both sides.

7. Perusal of the record clearly indicates that vehicle in question was purchased on 31.08.2011 and the same was registered on 12.09.2011 while the accident has occurred on 19.11.2011. Perusal of the documents (Ex. A3) clearly indicates that the permit was granted to the owner of the vehicle to play the vehicle on 07.05.2012. Looking to the said documents, it is clear that the owner of vehicle was not having any permit to ply the vehicle at the time of accident, hence there was a breach of policy. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2018 MACD (3) (SC) 202 has dealt with the identical issue and held that the Insurance Company would pay the amount of compensation to the claimants-respondents and recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle.

8. In view of the above, this appeal stands disposed of by modifying the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of compensation to the respondents-cla