Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Nirmal – Respondent
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
Point of law: vehicle which did not have permit to ply on the road which fact cannot but be heid to be in violation of policy conditions. The contention that the owner should not be made liable even ....
The insurance company must prove any breach of policy conditions to avoid liability for compensation claims.
The Insurer cannot evade liability for compensation due to permit violations that do not constitute a fundamental statutory infraction.
Insurance companies cannot avoid liability under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act despite permit violations; the principle of pay and recover ensures claimants receive compensation first.
The court established that liability for compensation lies primarily with the vehicle owner when an accident occurs outside the permit's authorized area, while allowing the Insurance Company to initi....
Deviation from the permit route does not absolve the insurance company from liability if the vehicle was used for its intended purpose.
The absence of a valid permit for a vehicle involved in an accident absolves the Insurance Company from liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The absence of a route permit did not entitle the insurance company to repudiate the claim in its entirety, and the claim could be settled at 75% of the assessed damage to the vehicle on a non-standa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
