The possession of a route permit is not a requirement under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Jitendra Chauhan, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, challenging the impugned Award dated 7.12.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (in short 'the Tribunal').

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon the appellant, as the owner did not produce the route permit. However, the owner has already paid the entire taxes as levied by the State Govt. till 30.6.2008, whereas the accident occurred on 13.4.2007.

The accident occurred in District Yamuna Nagar and the vehicle was also registered at Yamuna Nagar. No official was examined from RTO, Yamuna Nagar or no issue with regard to permit was framed by the learned Tribunal. Thus, he prays that the finding with regard to recovery right given to the Insurance Company may be set aside.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance company vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly granted recovery right, as the appellant did not have any route permit at the time of accident. Therefore, the present appeal may be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5. The offending vehicle i.e. Truck was a goods carrying vehicle. It was owned by the appellant and was plying in District Yamuna Nagar and the accident also occurred in District Yamuna Nagar.

6. A Division Bench of this Court while deciding FAO No.3726 of 2006 titled as “United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Subhash Chander and others”, on 18.8.2006, considering the case of “Challa Bharathamma (supra)”, has dealt with a similar question and held as under:

“We have carefully perused the judgment and we find that, in the said case, there was no permit at all in terms of definition of permit, as contained in Section 2(31) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act'). The said definition, on reproduction, reads as under:“2(31) “Permit” means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle.” We have also perused Section 149 of the Act which relates to insurer's liability and it is reproduced as under:

“149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.

(1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under subsection (3) of Section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) (or under the provisions of Section 163A) is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments.

(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under subsection (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had noticed through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to de