JUDGEMENT

1. The contest in the present appeal is between the appellant/registered owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.4/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which got the offending vehicle insured for third party risks. The service of notice on the instant appeal to the claimants i.e., respondents No. 1 to 3 has been dispensed with.

2. The appellant is assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 02.04.2018 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi1, whereby the claim for compensation filed by the claimants under Section 140 read with section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19882, was allowed and a 1 MACT 2 The Act MAC.APP. 921/2018 Page 2 of 8 total compensation in the sum of Rs. 19,58,005/- with interest @ 9% p.a. has been awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition, which is 02.02.2017, till its realization.

3. The grievance of the appellant/registered owner is that the offending vehicle i.e., TATA 407 bearing Registration No. DL 1LW 4294, had a valid permit to ply in Greater Noida, but learned Tribunal has given the rights to respondent No.4/Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation that is paid to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal, CM APPL.No. 42719/2018 was moved on behalf of the appellant for production of additional evidence with respect to the permit requirement, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.10.2018.

5. Pursuant thereto, the appellant examined Sh. Rajesh Singh, S/o Sh. Maharaj Narain Singh, posted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement, Ghaziabad, ARTO) who deposed about the road tax receipt of Rs.50/-, which was deposited for vehicle No. DL-IE- W-4294 vide receipt no. UP00160600275958 on 28.08.2016 up to the same day i.e., 28.08.2016. The appellant further examined Sh. Piyush Srivastava, Technical Operator, NIC, Yojana Bhawan, Lucknow as AW-2, since National Informatics Centre (NIC) maintains the database of the generation of road tax in State of Uttar Pradesh.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, the long and short of the submissions advanced at the Bar MAC.APP. 921/2018 Page 3 of 8 hinges on the purport and legal sanctity of a receipt for fee/road tax of Rs.50, deposited towards the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LW-4294 on 28.08.2016 (Mark A) and then marked as Ex.AW-2/1.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that the accident in question had occurred on 28.08.2016, which led to the unfortunate death of the motor-cyclist Munish Kumar and the claimants are his widow wife, one minor child and his mother. It is also proven during the course of trial before the learned Tribunal that the appellant, being the registered owner of the offending vehicle, possessed a valid permit for plying the offending transport vehicle in Delhi. On the aspect of fixation of the liability upon the appellant/registered owner, the learned Tribunal made the following observations:-

“27. The next question is which respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

28. The defence of the insurance company is that the offending vehicle bearing No. DL-1LW-4294 was being plied without a valid permit at the time of accident, which is a violation of policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

29. Counsel for insurance company examined witness from Transport Department, Rajpura Road, Under Hill Road, Delhi who stated that permit of the vehicle bearing No.DL-1LW-4294 was issued from their authority for Delhi State only and proved his report as EX.R2W2/1. Perusal of record shows that th