Absence of a valid permit for a vehicle at the time of an accident constitutes a breach of insurance policy, absolving the insurer from liability for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Shri Anurodh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Vinay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent no.1. None appeared on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3 despite sufficient service and served personally.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the vehicle involved in the accident as alleged was DLIV-5126 but the Insurance Company had insured the vehicleNo.DL1V-5126 and it was admitted by the owner, who appeared before the Tribunal. He further submits that the owner had also pleaded that his vehicle was in the workshop on the date of accident i.e. 24.09.2013 and it was proved by appearing himself and producing the owner of the workshop Mohd.Haseeb, but the said evidence has been discarded on the ground that in the criminal case charge sheet has been filed, whereas the evidence and material of the criminal case could not have been considered to discard the evidence adduced before the trial court without proof. He further submits that the vehicle was not having the permit on the date of accident i.e. 24.09.2013 as per copies of the permit filed by him, but the learned tribunal has wrongly and illegally held the appellant-Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation awarded by it, whereas absence of permit was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company could not have been held liable for payment of compensation. He relies on Chandresh Kumar Agarwal Versus Yogendra Kumar Srivastrava and another, 2005 (2) TAC 6 (All.), Amrit Paul Singh and another Versus Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others, (2018) 7 SCC 558 and National Insurance Company Versus Challa Upendra Rao passed in Civil Appeal No.6178 of 2004 decided on 21st of September 2004; (2004) 8 SCC 517.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1 submits that the Bus DLIV-5126 was involved in the accident. It was specifically pleaded in the claim petition and it has been admitted by respondent no.2 i.e. Aftab Alam that he is the owner of the said vehicle and he has also given the Insurance policy number in his written statement and in his evidence also. He has not denied or doubted the said vehicle. Even otherwise as per registration number of the vehicle mentioned on the policy, the vehicle number is DLIV-5126, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived and not tenable. He further submits that the learned Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and evidence of the owner in regard to plea that the vehicle was in work shop on the date of accident, has recorded a finding that the owner has failed to prove that the vehicle was standing in the workshop for repairing of steering on the date and time of accident. Thus the involvement of the vehicle cannot be denied. He further submits that though the learned tribunal held that the vehicle had no permit was to be proved by the appellant- Insurance Company and it has failed to prove, therefore, it is liable to make the payment of compensation. However if this court comes to the conclusion that the vehicle was not having the valid permit on the date of accident, which is not against the claimant-respondent No.1 and only right of recovery can be granted to the appellant-Insurance Company and the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is liable to be paid by the appellant- Insurance Company, which has been deposited by the appellant before the tribunal under the order passed by this court and the same may be released and paid to the appellant. Thus the appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. The claim petition was filed alleging therein that son of the claimant-respondent no.1 Parideen, aged about 30 years son of Chhedi Lal, resident of Village-