Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Darshan Singh, J.
Mani Ram Aggarwal (Deceased) Through His Lrs. - Appellant
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Respondent
F.A.O No. 552 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Dheeraj Narula
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Pabbi, Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Mr. Sandeep Sharma
The mere operation of a vehicle in a state not covered by the route permit does not constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as interpreted under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Insurance Policy Violation - Motor Accident Claims - Section 66, Section 69, Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act - The court discussed the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in relation to the route permit and the operation of the vehicle in a different state. Key legal provisions such as Section 66, Section 69, and Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act were interpreted to establish that the mere operation of the vehicle in a state not covered by the route permit does not constitute a violation of the insurance policy.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, granting recovery rights to the Insurance company due to a motor vehicular accident. The appellant contested the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy based on the route permit and the operation of the vehicle in a different state.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the operation of the vehicle in a state not covered by the route permit did not constitute a violation of the insurance policy, and the Insurance Company was jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation with no recovery rights from the driver and owner of the vehicle.
Issues: The main issue was whether the operation of the vehicle in a state not covered by the route permit constituted a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and whether the Insurance Company had recovery rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of key legal provisions such as Section 66, Section 69, and Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act to establish that the mere operation of the vehicle in a state not covered by the route permit does not constitute a violation of the insurance policy.
Final Decision: The present appeal was allowed, modifying the impugned award to make the respondent no.1-Insurance Company jointly and severally liable for payment of the amount of compensation with no recovery rights from the driver and owner of the vehicle. The appellant was also entitled to the refund of the deposited amount as per rules.
Darshan Singh, J.
CM No. 1769-CII of 2011
There is delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal.
Heard on the application.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the application stands allowed and the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
FAO No. 552 of 2011
The present appeal has been preferred by appellant-Mani Ram Aggarwal, the owner of Tata 407 bearing registration No. RJ-31-G-0889, against the award dated 05.04.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for short 'Tribunal'), vide which respondent no.1, the Insurance company has been granted recovery rights.
2. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/- has been awarded to respondents no.2 and 3/claimant on account of the death of their son Vishal in the motor vehicular accident which took place on 02.06.2008. The learned Tribunal further held that there was no valid route permit to ply the vehicle in the State of Haryana. Thus, the appellant-insured has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Learned Tribunal ordered that at the first instance, respondent no.1-Insurance Company will pay the awarded amount to the petitioners and then it shall be at liberty to recover it from the driver-owner jointly and severally. Appellant, the owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal to assail these findings of the learned Tribunal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the paper book.
4. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has produced route permit Ex.R-1 before the learned Tribunal, which was meant for plying the vehicle in the State of Rajasthan. He contended that the learned Tribunal has held the violations of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy simply on the ground that the vehicle in question has been brought to the State of Haryana, though, it only had the route permit to ply only in the State of Rajasthan. He contended that it does not amount to the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and no such defence is available to respondent no.1-Insurance Company. To support his contentions, he has relied upon cases United India Insurance Company Limited v. Subhash Chander and others, FAO No. 3726 of 2006, decided on 18.08.2006 by the Division Bench of this Court, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajender Giri and others 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 183 and Future General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Surjo Devi and others, 2013 ACJ 2282. Thus, he contended that respondent no.1-Insurance Company was not entitled for the recovery rights. The appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 2,26,816/- for payment to respondent no.1, which is liable to be refunded.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that it is an admitted fact that the accident has taken place in the State of Haryana. The route permit Ex.R-1 was valid only for the State of Rajasthan, which amounts to the violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the learned Tribunal has rightly given the recovery rights to respondent no.1-Insurance Company. To support his contentions, he has relied upon case Partap Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And others 2015 ACJ 2754.
6. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.
7. The perusal of the impugned award shows that the route permit Ex.R-1 was produced in evidence by the appellant. Appellant has also stepped into the witness box as RW-2 and deposed that he has obtained the route permit Ex.R-1 of the vehicle in question for carrying the goods in the State of Rajasthan. So, it is an admitted fact that the appellant was having route permit to ply Tata 407 bearing registration no. RJ-31-G-0889 in the State of Rajasthan. But, this accident has taken place at Sirsa i.e. in the State of Haryana. The question for consideration in this case is as to whether the plying of the vehicle in question in the State of Haryana, though
