The absence of a permit for a school bus as a transport vehicle under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 constitutes a valid defense for the insurance company under Section 149(2), allowing recovery of compensation from the owner but not the driver of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

Rekha Mittal, J.

The insured/owner and driver of school bus bearing HR 65- 0548 have filed the present appeal to challenge findings of the Tribunal that the offending vehicle did not possess a permit constituting a valid defence for the insurance company, therefore, the insurance company shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle after payment to the claimants, while deciding issues No. 1 to 3 and 2A jointly.

2. Counsel for the appellants would urge that the deceased was not travelling in the bus in question when the occurrence in question took place resulting in death of Sher Singh. It is further argued that as the offending vehicle is a school bus, there is no requirement in law to have a route permit. Another submission made by counsel is that the Tribunal has For Subsequent orders see FAO-499-2016 not correctly appreciated testimony of Jasbir Singh (RW3), Clerk from the office of Regional Transport Authority, Kurukshetra who deposed that receipt Ex. R4 with regard to deposit of Rs. 850/- by the insured was issued by their office. In support of his contentions, he has referred to judgment of the Kerala High Court Sethunath vs. John Varghese, 2011 (1) Civil Court Cases 822 affirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a petition for leave to appeal (CC) 16038-16045 of 2011, decided on 10.10.2011, a Division Bench judgment of this Court National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kamlesh Kaur and others, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 634, Single Bench judgements of this Court M/s Yadwindra Public School, SAS Nagar, Mohali vs. Seema and others, 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 50 and Green Wood Public Senior Secondary School vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company and others (FAO No. 4019 of 2010, decided on 16.07.2014).

3. Counsel representing the insurance company has supported findings of the Tribunal that as the school bus (LTV) falls within the definition of Transport Vehicle under Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act') which requires a permit for being plied at a public place, in terms of Section 66 of the Act and as there was no permit of the bus in question, it constitutes a valid defence in favour of the insurer, under Section 149 (2) of the Act, exonerating the company from its liability to pay compensation, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted recovery right in favour of the insurer and against the insured and driver of the offending vehicle.

4. With regard to receipt Ex.R4 relied upon by the appellants, it is For Subsequent orders see FAO-499-2016 submitted that even if the insured had deposited some money to enable it to get a permit, the same would not automatically operate to accept contention of the appellants that the insured was possessing a permit on the date of occurrence to ply the vehicle at public place. In addition, it is argued that Jasbir Singh (RW3) has categorically stated that the amount was deposited without order of any competent authority. It has further been argued that the judgments relied upon by counsel for the appellants rendered by Division Bench and Single Benches of this Court relate to route permit and not the permit, therefore, the appellants cannot derive any advantage to their contentions from the referred authorities. Further argued that judgment passed by the Kerala High Court, referred to above, pertains to entirely different facts and has got no bearing on the case at hand. On the other hand, he has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India National Insurance Company Limited vs. Chella Bharathamma and others, Vol. CXXXIX 2005 (1) PLR 102. Further reference has been made to judgments by Single Benches of this Court Partap Singh vs. National Insurance Company and others (FAO 4922 of 2014, decided on 16.07.2014), Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Surender Singh and others (FAO 5339 of 2013, decided on 21.09.2016) and Rajinder Singh vs. United India Insurance