ORDER :

PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

The respondent No.2/driver was served through ordinary process and respondent No.3/owner has been served by the appellant/insurance company through paper publication by publishing notice in daily news paper Rajasthan Patrika, Alwar edition on 16.04.2024 where the respondent No.3 resides, in view of the same the service of notice of this appeal was deemed to be effected by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2025. Despite service, neither respondent No.2, nor respondent No.3 have entered their appearance before this Court. The counsel for respondent No.1 is present.

2. This appeal is of the year 2012 as such it is being heard in absence of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. The appeal has been filed by the insurance company in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the findings recorded by the claims tribunal in para 7 of the impugned award inasmuch as by discarding the defence raised by the insurance company with respect to absence of permit and consequential breach of policy, the liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the insurance company/appellant.

4. The facts in brief relevant for adjudication of the present dispute are that on 16.02.2008 at around 08:30 in the evening the claimant Nirmal / the respondent No.1 was sitting as a cleaner in truck bearing registration number HR-A-1305. The respondent No.2 was driving the said truck in a rash and negligent manner because of which it got upturned at Jamaalpura Square, Gandhisagar, Raampura Road resulting in grievous injuries to the claimants/respondent No.1. He sustained fracture on his left hand in which rod was implanted. His jaw bone was also broken which was repaired with implant of plate. There was deformity in the hand and face of the respondent No.1.

5. The respondent No.1 filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident. The claims tribunal after recording evidence awarded a total compensation to the tune of Rs.1,41,300/- to the respondent No.1, however, the defence of the insurance company that it is not liable to pay compensation for the breach of terms of insurance policy was discarded and the appellant was directed to pay the compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that in the facts of the present case, the spot of accident becomes very significant which is Jamaalpur Square which is situated in the State of M.P. which comes within the territory of district Neemuch covered by jurisdiction of police station-Raampura.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company by referring to Ex.D-7, the report of verification of particulars of permit no. 5642/NP/06 of vehicle in question as given by the surveyor, submits that in item No.3 area authorized to drive the vehicle has been provided in which four states are mentioned i.e. Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan and U.P. only, as such the vehicle could have been plied in these four states and not in the State of M.P. He then refers Ex.P-9 which is 'authorization for tourist or national permit' i.e. the permit to ply the vehicle within the designated area. He points out that in the table provided in said document three states are mentioned i.e. Delhi, U.P. and Rajasthan. The validity of authorization is provided from 05.11.2007 to 04.11.2008 and the accident occurred on 16.02.2008, thus, within this period of authorization, however beyond the authorised area. He submits that the owner has not come with a case that he was having any separate authorization for plying the vehicle in the State of M.P. He further refers to Ex.D-8/the insurance policy and straightway points out at the bottom of the policy which provides that the policy was issued subject to provisions of Chapter 10 and Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He then would show the statement of DW-1/officer of the insurance company who in para 3 of his statement has stated by referring to Ex.D-7