IMPORTANT POINT
The presence of a valid permit for a vehicle is essential in determining the liability of an insurance company in motor accident claims, and the absence of such a permit cannot be the sole reason for exonerating the insurer.

ORDER :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle aggrieved by judgment and award dated 20.12.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara Camp Shahpura (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.184/2006 : Ganga Ram & Ors. vs. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. whereby while awarding compensation in favour of claimants, the liability to satisfy the award has been fastened upon the appellant while exonerating the insurance company from its liability.

2. The instant appeal is reported to be barred by 2315 days and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants, namely, Ganga Ram, Smt. Galol, Smt. Santra @ Sampati and Ramraj filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhilwara Camp Shahpura claiming compensation on account of death of their sole bread winner late Sh. Madanlal, who lost his life in an accident, which took place on 25.07.2006. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia alleged that on 25.07.2006 late Sh. Madanlal along with Bajrang Singh and Banwari were coming Bhilwara on Motorcycle No.RJ-06-7171, then at about 06:00 pm, while they reach near Octroi Post, situated at Jahajpur, no-nclaimant (driver of the offending Tanker vehicle No.HR-38A-6372) while plying the vehicle rashly and negligently applied its break suddenly and on account of applying break suddenly, the motorcycle, collided behind the tanker, as a result of which the riders of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries. The injured persons were removed to CHC, Jahajpur, however, looking the grievousness of the injuries suffered by Sh. Madanlal, he was referred to Bhilwara, however, during treatment, Sh. Madanlal died. The accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. At the time of accident, deceased Madanlal was working as supervisor in cloth factory and earning Rs.5000/- per month. Thus, the claimants filed claim claiming compensation of Rs.53,80,000/- on account of untimely death of Sh. Madanlal. A report of the aforesaid accident was given at Police Station Jahajpur, wherein after investigation Challan was filed against driver, namely, Radheyshyam.

4. The appellant/non-claimants i.e. owner and non-claimant driver of the offending vehicle, though were provided opportunity to file their reply, but they had not filed any reply and therefore, on 10.07.2007 the opportunity of filing reply was closed. Nonclaimant i.e. insurance company filed its reply while refuting the facts and claim made by the claimants. Various objections with regard to driver of the vehicle not having the valid and effective licence and permit were also raised by the non-claimant insurance company. Thus by filing the reply to the claim petition, the non-claimant insurance company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal proceeded to frame four issues for its consideration. In support of the claim, the claimants examined AW.1 Gangaram, AW.2 Bajrang Singh. In documentary evidence, the claimants got exhibits 11 documents. From the side of non-claimant/insurance company NAW.1- K.M. Joshi was examined and five documents were exhibited.

6. The learned Tribunal after considering the arguments advanced and the material placed before it, vide its judgment and award dated 20.12.2007 proceeded to partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.4,18,000/- with 6% interest p.a. The liability to pay the compensation was, however, fastened upon the non-claimant (appellant/owner herein) and the non-claimant insurance company was exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation, though the vehicle was insured with it and the appellant/owner was having valid