The insurance company's liability to pay the claim was established despite the absence of a fitness certificate, as the policy was issued without objection to the fitness of the vehicle.

1. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-insurance company as well as learned counsel on behalf of the claimants, it transpires that the accident occurred on 18.04.2012 at 4:00 PM on Ram Nagar-Kaladhungi Road, where a passenger bus (bearing no.UA-04-A/2085) dashed Mr. Kishor Ram, a man running in his late 30’s. He succumbed to the injuries and passed away on account of such accident.

2. Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued that the fitness certificate was not produced before the Tribunal and as per the information received by investigator of insurer on Form No.54, such fitness was valid since 29.01.2011 to 28.01.2012 and then further, since 25.04.2012 to 24.04.2013.

3. There is no endorsement about the fitness of such passenger vehicle since 29.01.2012 to 24.04.2012 i.e. this vehicle remained without such endorsement almost for two months and twenty seven days and during this period, the accident occurred on 18.04.2012.

4. It has further been argued by learned Senior Counsel that as per requirement of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as “Act”), any transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority.

5. Section 39 of the Act contemplates that no person will drive any motor vehicle and no owner of motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven on any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter.

6. The contention of learned Senior Counsel is that during the period of those two months twenty seven days, such vehicle could not have been driven on the public place and if the motor owner has violated the requirement of Section 39 read with Section 56 of the Act, then vehicle owner should be held responsible to meet out the award instead of fastening the liability upon the insurance company.

7. This Court is unable to agree with these contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the reasons as below:-

(a) The endorsement of competent officer on Form No.54 shows that such officer makes declaration of validity of fitness from year to year and at one time, he declares such vehicle to be fit to run on the road for one year.

It is difficult to discern as to how such declaration could have been issued at the end of any officer because sustenance of fitness of any vehicle may depend on several factors, like, as to how and in what manner it is used, the quality of roads, on which it is made to run, the competence and degree of skill of its driver, who may keep on changing from time to time, the number of passengers, it transports often, the quickness and attention, which any owner/driver would have paid, if a defect developed in such vehicle, etc. etc.

So, if any competent officer issues such certificate on a particular date and time, then it is difficult to accept that such officer will ever be capable to foresee that vehicle will remain fit for complete coming one year. It is completely ridiculous to my mind and no such certificate can ever be issued. Any vehicle, which is declared fit on a particular date and time, may be quite unfit on just another day to be plied on the road as per requirement of Section 56 of the Act, much less a period of one year.

(b) The insurer issued the policy after receiving the premium w.e.f. 21.09.2011 to 20.09.2012 viz. such insurer undertook to pay on all scores, wherefore policy was issued. If the insurer was so meticulous about the sustenance, maintenance and fitness of the vehicle concerned, then it was not desirable to insure from 20.09.2011 onwards up to complete for one year and instead of that, insurance would have been issued only up to the period of 28.01.2012.

Contrary to such, the policy was issued disregard of the fact, whether the owner of vehicle will mai