Insurers cannot escape liability for third party risks merely due to permit violations not specified in the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 3.3.2011 passed by the Ninth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 109 of 2010.

2. As against the compensation of Rs. 9,58,000 claimed by the respondent No. 1 - claimant by filing application under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21.11.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,96,700 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment.

3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: that the accident had occurred due to involvement of Turbo (jeep taxi) bearing registration No. CG 19 - T 0460 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2, Sanat Kalar, and motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 04 - CF 8255 owned by the respondent No.1 - claimant who was sitting on the motor cycle as a pillion rider; both drivers have contributed to the cause of accident, respondent No. 1 - claimant sustained injuries in the said accident, appellant insurance company is liable for payment of compensation to the claimant as it could not establish violation of policy conditions; and assessed and awarded aforesaid sum to the claimant and as against the appellant insurance company.

4. Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit: the Tribunal has failed to see that offending vehicle was being plied in violation of terms of policy conditions, inasmuch as the permit for offending vehicle was issued for Ranker District whereas the same was being plied in Raipur District and, therefore, liability of payment of compensation cannot be saddled upon the insurance company. Reference was also made to S.66 of the MV Act relating to necessity for permits.

5. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Dewan - gan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, supported the award impugned and would submit in the facts and circumstances of the case that the Tribunal has rightly saddled the liability upon the appellant insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant which does not call for any interference.

6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned including records of the Tribunal.

7. There is no dispute that said vehicle (Turbo jeep) was being plied on a road not covered by the route mentioned in the permit, inasmuch as the vehicle was being plied in Raipur District whereas permit was issued for Kanker District.

8. Permit is defined in S.2 (31) of the MV Act, which reads as under:
"permit means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle."

9. Stage carriage is defined in S.2 (40) of the MV Act, which reads as under:
"stage carriage means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey."

10. It goes without saying in view of these definitions that the purpose for which a stage carriage permit is granted is to enable a vehicle to ply as a stage carriage. Fixing of the route and the timings would amount to providing restrictions in the manner of plying the vehicle as a stage carriage under the stage carriage permit. These restrictions have clearly nothing to do with the purpose for which the permit is granted