The central legal point established is that the liability for compensation in a motor accident case should be on the owner of the vehicle if the vehicle was not being driven in compliance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Brief facts of the instant Appeal from Order are, that the claimants had preferred a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, thereby praying for grant of an appropriate compensation to the tune of Rs. 10.00 lakh, on account of injury caused to the claimant Sueb Khan, due to the accident which has chanced on 10.02.2010 by a vehicle, which was owned by respondent No. 2 i.e. Vikar Hussain and which, at the relevant point of time, was being driven by respondent No. 3 i.e. S. Khan.

2. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after dealing with the factual matrix about the vehicle being involved in the accident and upon exchange of pleading had framed the issues and the issue which presently would be of concern for deciding the instant Appeal from Order, would be the issue No. 3 as to whether at the relevant point of time, i.e. on the date of accident dated 10.02.2010, the vehicle was being driven in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy. Issue No. 3 is extracted hereunder:

“(iii) Whether at the relevant time the alto car involved in the accident was being driven as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy?”

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 66, which is part of Chapter 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it has provided, that no owner of the vehicle will use the vehicle, for any commercial activities for being plied, in a public place until and unless there happens to be a valid permit issued in favour of the owner of the vehicle, as contemplated under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as on the date of the accident i.e. 10.02.2010, the offending vehicle, which was admittedly owned by respondent No. 2, bearing registration No. UK-04/TA1545 (Alto Car), was not having a valid permit as per Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and such, liability of payment of compensation as determined to be made payable to Sueb Khan, who was injured couldn’t have been harnessed upon the insurance company.

5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle had argued that the observation, which has been made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while deciding issue No. 3, to the effect, that the owner of the vehicle could not get the valid permit owing to the fact that there was a strike in the department for a period from 10.01.2010 to 10.02.2010, that in itself cannot be taken as to be a valid reason to waive off the liability, which otherwise is to be fastened upon the owner of the vehicle, since the vehicle itself was not being plied in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act particularly when and the Insurance company in accordance with the insurance policy itself had provided, that in case if the vehicle was plied in contravention to the provisions of the insurance policy though the vehicle might have been covered by the insurance policy, but since it was being operated in contravention to the provisions contained under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability should have befallen on the owner of the vehicle and not on the insurance company.

6. The offending vehicle, on the date of the accident i.e. dated 10.02.2010 was not having valid permit is a fact which is quite apparent from the finding which has been recorded on issue No. 3 itself, because the defense taken by the owner of the vehicle that they could not procure a document because of the strike for a period from 10.01.2010 to 10.02.2010 that in itself will amount to be an admission on part of respondent No. 2, that on the date of accident, they were not having a valid permit, as it is contemplated under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence, the vehicle was not being plied in compliance of the provisions contained under Section 66, which creates an absolute bar that the owner of the vehicle cannot ply a veh