The liability of the vehicle owner and the quantum of compensation were determined based on the interpretation of Sections 88 and 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, to set aside the order dated 03.09.2015 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.67 of 2012 passed by the Learned III Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. This Appeal is preferred by the owner of the vehicle aggrieved by the Tribunal fastened with liability to pay the accident victim, in spite of his bus insured under the 5th respondent/Insurance Company.

2. The Appeal arises under the following circumstances:-

On 14.11.2011, at about 18.15 hours, when one Smt.Chandiravadani, aged about 48 years walking alone Pondicherry -Villianur Main road, from North-South, the bus bearing registration No.TN-32-2579 owned by the appellant, dashed against Smt.Chandiravadani and caused her death. Claim petition for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was filed against the appellant the vehicle owner and the insurer.

3. Both the respondents filed counter. While the Insurance Company contended that there is a permit violation by the vehicle owner. The bus which is suppose to ply within the District of Villupuram in Tamil Nadu State, had entered Union Territory of Pondicherry and has caused the accident. Therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured, who has violated the permit condition.

4. The appellant/1st respondent is owner of the vehicle, he in his counter had stated that, the said vehicle went to Pondicherry to repair the gear box and while returning back after rectifying the fault, the incident occurred. The accident was due to the fault of the victim, who did not notice the vehicle and cross the road. It was further contended by the vehicle owner that the bus bearing registration No.TN-32-2579 is a private service vehicle. It is used by the appellant to commute students from Cuddalore and Pondicherry to the College at Villupuram and back to their residence. The vehicle is permitted to ply between Cuddalore and Villupuram District with 16 kilometre enclave inside Pondicherry. Therefore, there is no permit violation by the vehicle owner and therefore, the Insurance Company has to indemnify them.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submission and the defence taken by the vehicle owner observed that, R.W.1 the workshop Manager of the Appellant College say that the vehicle is owned by college and used for Transporting students. It has permitted to enter Pondicherry and ply within 16 kilometres. The vehicle on the day of accident came to Pondicherry for attending the fault. However, under the statute this 16 kilometre enclave route is only for goods carrier and not for other vehicles. Therefore, held the vehicle owner is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance company to pay and recover from the insured. Considering the other material, fixed the quantum of compensation at Rs.7,22,000/- to be paid to the dependents of the deceased Chandiravadani.

6. In this appeal, the vehicle owner has contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider Section 88 proviso (2) of Motor Vehicle Act and Section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act, which would clearly prove that for the purpose of repair work, the vehicle can be taken to the non-permitted area, within the limit of 16 kilometres. In this case, the vehicle was taken to Pondicherry to attend the fault of the vehicle. It is proved through evidence it was within 16 kilometre. The Tribunal has wrongly understood the deposition of R.W.1 that the vehicle was taken outside the permitted area to carry passengers.

7. It was contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that on comprehensive ready of Section 88 of Motor Vehicle Act and 66 (3) (p) of Motor Vehicle Act, there could be no violation of permitted condition.

8. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that in the evidence of R.W.1, it is admitted that the vehicle used to enter Pondicherry to transport students f