The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act related to permits for transport vehicles and the liability of the insurer under Section 149. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of compliance with permit conditions and the validity of evidence in determining liability and compensation in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as „the appellant?) is in appeal against the award dated 3rd March, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in claim petition No.85/C titled Ashok Singh v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and others, whereby and whereunder respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) has been held entitled to compensation of Rs.7,94,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum and the appellant- Insurance Company has been directed to satisfy the award within thirty days.

2. The claimant has also filed separate appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

3. Before proceeding to consider the grounds of challenge to the impugned award urged by the insurer, it would be necessary to state, briefly, few facts.

As is gatherable from the award, on 11.05.2011, a motor vehicle accident involving the vehicle bearing registration No.JK02AA- 1157 (passenger bus) driven by respondent No.3, took place at Rajal National Highway within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Nowshera. The claimant, who was travelling in the offending vehicle suffered multiple injuries and was rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 70%. FIR No.96/2011 under Sections 279/337 RPC came to be registered against respondent No.3. The claimant, who suffered grievous injuries in the accident and was rendered permanently disabled, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal arraying apart from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, the insurer, as well, as party respondents. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle despite service chose not to contest the claim petition and, thus, were proceeded ex-parte. The claim petition was contested by the insurer only. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether on 11.05.2011 the driver of offending vehicle driving the vehicle No.JK02AA/1157 rashly and negligently and when it reached near Rajal National Highway under the jurisdiction of Police Station Nowshera he could not control the vehicle and caused accident, due to which petitioner sustained critical injuries? OPP

2. In case issue No.1 is provide in affirmative to which amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, as such, respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify the owner? OPR-3

4. Whether the terms and conditions of the insurance policy have been violated, as such, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner? OPR-3

5. Relief….”

The claimant besides himself entering the witness box, also examined Shivam Singh and Dr. Zakir Hussain as his witnesses to substantiate his claim and to discharge the onus of proof of issue Nos.1 and

2. The insurer also led its evidence in rebuttal and examined RW-Manish Kotwal, a legal executive of the Insurance Company and RW-Surinder Kumar, a clerk in the office of ARTO.

4. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence brought on record by the parties, held issue No.1 proved in favour of the claimant and against the insurer and other respondents. Issue Nos. 3 & 4 were also held not proved by the insurer. The Tribunal, thus, considered the evidence with regard to quantum of compensation payable to the claimant and held him entitled to compensation of Rs.7,94,000/- alongwith interest. The insurer is aggrieved of the award and has challenged the same, inter alia, on the filing grounds:-

a) The Tribunal has failed to consider that breach of permit conditions is a valid defense available to the insurer under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

b) The offending bus, a passenger vehicle, at the time of accident was being used a