Lack of permit and fitness cannot be grounds for exonerating the insurance company, and the insurance company's failure to verify registration and fitness precludes it from raising these issues as a defense.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Arun Prakah, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Amit Kumar Verma for respondent nos. 1 to 5 (claimants) and Sri Hari Nath Chaubey for respondent no. 6.

2. It is submitted that by learned counsel for the appellant that there is lacuna in computing wages of the deceased in as much as in cross examination owner of the Tractor has deposed that the deceased was called for work as and when required basis and he proved to work for 5-10 days in a month. Therefore, it is submitted that factum of wages has not been used. It is further submitted that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that registration and fitness of the Tractor in question was also not valid. Its fitness was valid from 3.7.1987 to 2.7.2002 and therefore on the date of accident i.e. 6.7.2013 neither there was registration nor fitness and if Tractor was being driven in violation of the provisions as contained in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 then Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

3. Sri Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 (claimants) supports the award and submits that award has been made calculating wages on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time.

4. It is submitted that once insurance company has decided to insure the vehicle without verifying the registration and fitness of the tractor in question, then it cannot be said that there was no privity for contract between the insurer and the insured. In fact, insurer was required to verify the factum of re-registration of the tractor and fitness prior to insuring the vehicle for the period in question and since, the insurance company has failed to take precautions, liability cannot be fastened on the owner of the insurance company and now the insurance company is precluded from taking such defense.

5. After hearing the arguments and going though material on record, as far as law in regard to permit is concerned, it is settled in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Uma Tripathi and another as reported in 2019 (8) ADJ 253 that lack of permit and fitness cannot be made a ground for exonerating the insurance company and in this regard coordinate Bench of this High Court has distinguish the Constitution Bench's judgment of Kerala High Court in case of Pareet Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd as reported in 2018, (10) Laws (Ker.) 124.

6. Thus, in view of such judgment of coordinate Bench, lack of fitness cannot be taken as a ground for repudiating the claim. Similarly, when insurance company had failed to examine the fact of registration before entering into the contract of insurance, it is precluded from raising this plea of insured vehicle not having registration so to seek exoneration.

7. In view of such facts, both the grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellant are not made out, therefore, appeal fails and is disposed off.