The central legal point established in the judgment is the insurer's defense based on the breach of policy conditions under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Dev Darshan Sud, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till payment. The facts are not disputed but what the appellant/insurance company challenges in the award is that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act i.e. Ex. RW1/A which is route permit, was not valid on the date when the accident took place and in this eventuality the liability would not be that of the insurance company but squarely that of the owner. The learned Tribunal on the pleadings and evidence before it, holds that the vehicle was not being driven in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy. The learned Tribunal holds that Ex. RA, which is the registration certificate of the vehicle and Ex. RB, which is the driving licence, were effective and valid on the date when the accident took place.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Ex.RW1/A, which is the route permit, is valid from 13th March, 2008 to th March, 2008. The accident took place on 6th March, 2008 on which date no valid route permit was in existence. This submission of the appellant is opposed by Shri H.S. Rana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/owner on the ground that there was no pleading(s) and evidence on this issue. The issue framed by the learned Tribunal was as to whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of the insurance policy.

3. What I find from the pleadings is that in preliminary objections No.4, it has been clearly pleaded that permit and certificate of fitness have not been placed on the record of the case. In any event, Ex. RW1/A is the permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Solan, which has been proved by RW1 Shri Devender Attri, Computer Operator in the Office of RTO, Solan. In cross-examination he admits that permit does not state as to when it was applied for. Ex. RW1/A is valid from 13th March, 2008 to 5th March, 2013. There was no evidence contrary to it. The date of accident has not been disputed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies upon judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Samila and others, FAO No. 13 of 2007 (along with connected appeals), decided on 12.1.2012 holding:

“4. The main question is whether the owner had a valid permit to ply the bus and if not whether the Insurance Company has to be exonerated of its liability. These matters were heard in part on 30.6.2011 on which date this Court had passed the following order:- “Heard in part. One of the main questions which arises in these cases is, whether the owner of the bus had a valid route permit to ply the bus on the particular route or not. The owner in one of the case stated that he had applied for a route permit and in another case stated that Block President of Congress had applied for special permit for that day and the permit was in the bus. In my view to do the justice between the parties and effectively decide these cases, it is necessary to find out whether the owner had a valid route permit or not. The owner is called upon to file an affidavit disclosing whether the had any regular route permit of the bus in question on the date when accident took place. In case there was such a route permit, he shall disclose from which authority the route permit was issued. The owner in his affidavit shall also clearly state whether any special permit was obtained and if it was obtained from which authority? Affidavit be filed within two weeks. List on 14th July, 2011.”

6. Shri Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the owner did not have a valid route permit to ply the bus and this was a breach of the condition of the policy and as such the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay