The central legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of terms and conditions of an insurance policy, particularly related to the possession of a valid permit for a vehicle, can entitle the insurance company to have the right of recovery after compensating the claimants.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Mittal, J. (Oral) - Amritpal and another, driver and owner of truck No.PB-13-M-1163 (alleged offending vehicle) are in appeal to assail award dated 06.07.2015 primarily on the question of insured being guilty of violating the terms and conditions of contract of insurance, on the basis whereof, the insurance company has been given right of recovery after discharging its liability towards the claimants.

2. Counsel for the appellants would argue that permit issued by Regional Transport Authority, Patiala dated 07.07.2009 was valid upto 06.07.2014. Prior to expiry of validity period, appellant No.2 deposited fee for renewal of permit on 04.07.2014 vide receipt No.9814126296897 Ex.R2/Annexure A2. It is further argued that Neel Kanth Sharma, Junior Assistant from the office of RTA, Patiala was examined. In his cross examination, he has admitted that the Department does not maintain any record in manual form after computerization since 2010 and fee for permit is deposited online. He has further admitted it correct that renewal fee for permit in respect of offending vehicle PB-13M-1163 was deposited on 04.07.2014 vide receipt Ex.R2. It is argued with vehemence that if the concerned authority did not issue the permit immediately on deposit of renewal fee well before expiry of validity of the earlier permit valid upto 06.07.2014, the appellants cannot be condemned for there being no permit on the day of occurrence i.e. 10.08.2014. It is further argued that fresh permit was issued on 13.10.2014 valid upto 12.10.2019, therefore, the insured cannot be blamed for alleged violation of terms and conditions of policy for non-possessing of permit on the day of occurrence i.e. 10.08.2014. It is argued with vehemence that in view of the materials on record particularly the documents produced in the testimony of Neel Kanth Sharma, finding recorded by the Tribunal that either the insured is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of policy or the insurer is entitle to right of recovery cannot be allowed to sustain.

3. Counsel representing the insurance company, on the contrary, would urge that perusal of the permit issued w.e.f. 13.10.2014 would reveal that it makes reference to deposit of Rs. 2900/- vide receipt No.A-69715 dated 13.10.2014. It is further argued that the registered owner of the vehicle did not appear in the witness box to explain as to why there are two receipts with regard to deposit of Rs. 2900/- as renewal fee i.e. one dated 04.07.2014 relied upon by the appellants and the other that finds reference in the renewed permit Ex.R3. Another submission made by counsel is that assuming that a sum of Rs. 2900/- was deposited by Jarnail Singh towards fees of renewal of permit on 04.07.2014, it is not a substitute for permit required for plying a transport vehicle at a public place in compliance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'). In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of this Court Ram Kishan and another v. M/s HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, FAO No.2298 of 2014, decided on 16.05.2018.

4. Be that as it may, it is undisputed position of the case that previous permit issued in respect of the offending vehicle got expired on 06.07.2014. The new permit was issued on 13.10.2014 valid upto 12.10.2019. In the interregnum from 07.07.2014 till 12.10.2014, there was no permit authorizing/permitting Jarnail Singh to ply the vehicle at a public place.

5. Section 66 of the Act deals with necessity for permits. A relevant extract from sub section 1 of Section 66, reads thus:-

"No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in