J U D G M E N T

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the Award dated 01.03.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the „Impugned Award‟) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in MAC Petition No.504961/2016, titled Smt. Rubi Devi & Ors. v. Megh Singh & Ors..

2. The limited challenge of the appellant against the Impugned Award is on the liberty granted by the learned Tribunal to the respondent no.1 herein, that is the Insurance Company, to recover the compensation paid by it to the claimants, that is the respondent nos.2 to 5 herein, from the appellant, who is the owner of the offending Signature Not Verified vehicle. The learned Tribunal has granted the recovery right to the respondent no. 1 on the ground that the appellant, as on the date of the accident, did not have a Permit for plying the offending vehicle, that is the Truck bearing registration no.HR-38F-3387, within the State of Delhi.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant:

3. The learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297, submits that the respondent no.1 can escape its liability under the Insurance Policy only where it can prove that there is a breach of the condition(s) of the policy as stipulated in Section 149(2)(a)(i) or Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟).

4. He submits that Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Act states that only where the vehicle is being used for a purpose not allowed by the Permit, that the respondent no.1 can avoid its liability under the Insurance Policy and can seek recovery of the compensation paid from the appellant. He submits that mere plying of the Offending Vehicle at a place beyond the route for which the Permit has been granted is not a fundamental breach of the conditions of policy for which the insured can claim a right to recover the compensation paid to the claimants from the owner/insured. In support, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2285; the judgment of the Full Bench of High Court of Kerela in Augustine, V.M. v. Ayyapankutty and Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 14898; of the High Signature Not Verified Court of the Punjab & Haryana in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Paramjit Kaur and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 11190, and in ICICI Lombard General Motor Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vijaya Chhabra and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 7973; and of the High Court of Karnataka in Ujwala Prasad v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1915, and judgment dated 27th July, 2021 in MFA No. 5960 of 2015, titled Smt.Rehanna Begum v.

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1:

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others (2018) 7 SCC 558, to submit that it is no longer res integra that where a vehicle is being used at a public place without a Permit, the Insurance Company shall have a right to recover the compensation paid to the claimants from the owner of the vehicle. He submits that in the present case, the vehicle was being admittedly plied in Delhi without a Permit and therefore, the respondent no.1 has rightly been granted a right to recover the compensation paid to the respondent nos.2 to 5 from the appellant herein.

Submissions of Mr. Ankit Virmani, learned Amicus Curiae:

6. While the present judgment was in preparation, another appeal, being MAC Appeal No.21 of 2016, titled IIFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha & Ors., was listed before this Court. In Signature Not Verified the said appeal, the same issue had been raised a