The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 148 and Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining the liability of the Owner and the Insurance Company.

Jitendra Chauhan, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the Owner of the offending vehicle, challenging the impugned award dated 6.5.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short 'the Tribunal'). Claimants/respondent Nos. 7 and 8- cross objectors have also filed the cross objections for enhancement of the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon the Owner and driver on the ground the offending vehicle did not have a valid route permit. However, in view of the provisions contained in Section 148 of the Motor Vehicle, there is no requirement of route permit. The vehicle was insured at the time accident. Therefore, the liability should be fastened upon the Insurance Company.

2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the vehicle was being used against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the appellant and has given recovery rights to the Insurance Company. He prays for the dismissal of the appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 7 and 8-cross objectors submits that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15 instead of 17, as the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of his death. He further submits that no amount has been awarded towards future prospects, loss of love, care and guidance to the children, and loss of love and affection to the mother. The amount awarded towards loss of consortium i.e. Rs. 15,000/- is also on the lower side.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

5. A Division Bench of this Court while deciding FAO No. 3726 of 2006 titled as "United India Insurance Company Limited v. Subhash Chander and others" on 18.8.2006, considered the case of "Challa Bharathamma (supra)" has dealt with a question of route permit 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 authorizing 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 sub-section (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 sub-section (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 Sub-section (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 ju