The main legal point established in the judgment is that plying a vehicle without a permit is a breach of specific condition of the policy, and the age of the deceased should be taken into account for adopting a multiplier to calculate compensation.

JUDGMENT

Nandita Dubey, J.

1. These two appeals, M.A. No.1720/2012 filed by the claimants and M.A. No.4715/2011, filed by the owner of the vehicle are arising out the award dated 26.08.2011, passed in M.V.Case No.107/2008 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur.

2. Appellants in M.A. 1720/2012 are the parents of the deceased, Shiva Soni aged 22 years, who died in a motor accident on 03.03.2008, while returning on motor cycle from Maihar, caused by the negligent driving of vehicle school minibus No. MP 20-E/9306, owned by the appellant in M.A. No.4715/2011 and driven by respondent No.3 and insured by respondent No.4, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The claimants filed the claim petition before the claims Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short the Tribunal) claiming compensation at the tune of Rs.4,83,888/- on account of death of their son, who worked as Sunar (jewellery maker) and earned Rs.3,000/- per month.

3. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

4. The learned counsel appearing for claimants in M.A. No. 1720/2012 submits that the deceased was 22 years of age. The multiplier applicable for a 22 years old person is 18, whereas the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 9 by taking in to consideration the age of the mother, who was 55 years old.

5. Shri Neeraj Ashar, learned counsel appearing for the owner in M.A. No. 4715/2011 has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly saddled the liability on the owner/appellant, for breach of policy for the reason of want of permit and exonerated the Insurance company and directed the Insurance company to pay and recover from the owner. It is submitted that there was no breach of insurance policy, as the owner has filed an application with permit fees for renewal of the permit on 14.06.2007 in the office of RTO Rewa, which was awaited. Hence, non-filing of permit was a technical defect. Reliance is placed on Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in V.M. Augustine v/s Ayyappankutty @ Mani, Puthimadathil & Another, (2015) AIR Kerala 131.

6. Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance company has submitted that plying the vehicle without requisite permit is a breach of specific condition of the policy and therefore, the Insurer has no liability.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. In the instant case, as noted above, the accident occurred on 03.03.2008 by mini bus No. MP 20-E/9306, which was insured from 23.09.2007 to 22.09.2008 with the Insurance Company. The appellant has applied for renewal of permit on 14.06.2007, however, merely, applying for renewal of permit does not mean that the permit has been granted. The minibus was granted permit for the period from 07.04.2009 to 30.06.2009. Shri Shivendra Singh (D.W.-3) from the RTO office has clearly stated that no permit for the period 03.03.2008 was granted to the owner-appellant. Thus, on the date of the accident, the bus was plying without permit. D.W.-1 Sachin Kumar Shukla, the Principal of the appellant/School has also admitted that he has not filed any permit for the relevant period.

9. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) ACJ 2094 (SC), the Supreme Court after considering the scope of Section 149(2) and Section 66 of the M.V. Act has held that a person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed at a better pedestal vis-a-vis, one who was permit, but has violated any condition thereof. Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. The case law relied upon by Shri Neeraj Ashar, learned counsel for the appellant/owner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case V.M. Augustine (supra) the vehicle was having permit, however its copy was not produced at the relevant time, whereas the present case is of no permit at all.

10. The question regarding which multiplier is t