The interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the insurance company's acceptance of the vehicle's fitness for operation influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J. - Heard V.K.Kohli, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. I.P.Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Akshay, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

2. None is present for the other respondents.

3. The limited question involved in this case is that the insurance company has challenged the correctness of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in MAC Case No. 10/2010, Smt. Deepa Devi and others vs. Sarat Singh Negi & others, dated 06.07.2011, wherein the Tribunal allowed the application and granted a sum of Rs. 4,79,419/- as compensation with simple interest at the rate of 5% in favour of the claimant and directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the claimants. The Tribunal has not granted any recovery right to the Insurance Company from the owner or driver of the vehicle.

4. The grievance of the Tribunal as put forth by Mr. V.K.Kohli, learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company is that the vehicle was not having a valid commercial permit as it could not have run more than 9 years from the date it is purchased. The dates appearing in this case are not in dispute.

5. The vehicle MAXI Cab bearing Registration No. U.P. 07 K-9247 was registered with the Transport Department, Dehradun on 27th October, 1999. In 2004, the permit was issued in favour of Sharad Singh Negi/opposite party no. 6 permitting him to ply the commercial vehicle from 4th November, 2004 to 3rd November, 2009. However, in column no. 7, the certificate mentions that the date of replacement of the vehicle is 26th October, 2008. The accident took place on 15.09.2009.

6. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company that since the date of replacement of the vehicle was mentioned in the permit to be 26th October, 2008, the Insurance Company shall not liable to pay any compensation for the claimant for an accident that took place on 15.09.2009. Even though, the permit was valid till 3rd of November, 2009, as the vehicle was not fit for commercial use. However, this contention was decided by the learned Tribunal against the Insurance Company on the ground that as per Section 74 sub-section (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Transport Authority does not have this jurisdiction or authority to decide the age of the vehicle up to which it can be operated. As per Section 59 of the aforesaid Act, it is the Central Government has the jurisdiction to decide up to what age a vehicle can be operated.

7. Moreover, very important aspect which is taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal is that the Insurance Company's witness DW1 admitted that the vehicle had a valid permit till 03.11.2009. It is further seen that the even in the Insurance Company put forth the argument that after 26.10.2008 the vehicle was not fit to be operated as a commercial vehicle, yet it granted an insurance coverage to it from 17.02.2009 till 16.02.2010 on the receipt of appropriate premium.

8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal requires no interference. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal.

9. The appeal is dismissed. Awarded amount has already been deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. The same may be released in its entirety along with accrued interest in favour of the claimant. Statutory deposit be transmitted forthwith to the Tribunal, by the Registry.

10. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.