IMPORTANT POINT
.

Darshan Singh, J.

CM-19998-CII of 2013

There is delay of 07 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

Heard on the application.

In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and the delay of 07 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

FAO No. 4744 of 2013

The present appeal has been preferred by appellant - ICICI Lombard General Motor Insurance Company Limited (respondent No. 2 in the claim petition) against the award dated 07.05.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal'), vide which respondents No. 1 to 3 (claimants in the claim petition) have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 33,91,424/- on account of death of Narinder Chhabra in the motor vehicular accident which took place on 07.12.2009.

2. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal against the award declining it the recovery rights.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the truck in question was being plied by respondent No.4 in violation of the terms and conditions of the permit. He contended that the permit was valid only for the State of Haryana, whereas the accident has taken place near Daria, U.T. Chandigarh. Thus, he contended that as the truck was being plied in the area of U.T. Chandigarh, without any valid permit which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, so the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable for payment of the amount of compensation or at least the appellant- Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount from the insured. To support his contentions he has relied upon case National Insurance Company v. Challa Bharathamma and others, 2004 ACJ 2094.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 contended that it is an admitted fact that the truck in question had the valid permit on the date of accident for the State of Haryana. The vehicle has only exceeded the jurisdiction/route of the permit which is not a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and it cannot be put forward a defence by the appellant-Insurance Company. To support his contentions he relied upon case Anju Bala and others v. Mohmmad Ahmed and others, 2015 (5) Law Herald (P&H) 4294.

5. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

6. This fact is not disputed that the truck in question has got the valid permit at the time of the accident for the State of Haryana only. It is also not disputed that the present accident has taken place near Dariya, U.T. Chandigarh. So, certainly the vehicle had strayed from the route to which the permit was granted. The question for consideration is as to whether if the vehicle strays route mentioned in the permit, whether it will amount to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and will be available as a defence to the Insurance Company. This Court in case Hans Raj Chaudhary v. Smt. Nanhi Devi and others, 2013 (7) RCR (Civil) 2574 has laid down as under:-

"The counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company still insist that Sections 66 and 69 of the Motor Vehicles Act set out the various terms of permit and one of the terms is that be that the vehicle could traverse only within the area allowed in the permit. The language used in Section 149 that sets out the permissible defences employs the expression of user of a vehicle "for a purpose not allowed by the permit". The purpose of the permit is not the same thing as condition in the permit. The legislature has employed a language restricting it only to violation of purpose of permit. The MV Act, being a beneficial legislation, the issue of liability should be interpreted to the benefit of claimant and to the extent to which the owner obtains indemnity, it makes possible the prospect of recovery so much easier."

7. Similarly in case Future General Insu