The insurer cannot evade liability for compensation based on permit violations unless a fundamental breach of policy conditions is proven.

1. The appellant/ New India Assurance Company Ltd has preferred the present appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881, assailing the Impugned judgment-cum-award dated 04.06.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi2 in MACT No. 202/103, titled as „Saurabh Khanna Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors‟ primarily on the ground that the compensation awarded to the claimant/injured is on the higher side, arbitrary and not in accordance with settled principles of law; and also challenging the non grant of

1 MV Act

2 Learned Tribunal/ MACT

3 Claim Petition FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated, the claimant/injured (Respondent No.1 herein) met with a motor accident at about 8pm on 14.05.2010 in Jawahar Nagar, Loni Road, when the left-back side of a bus bearing no. DL 1 PA 5421 (offending vehicle/bus) hit the motorcycle of the claimant/injured and the left-back wheel of the offending vehicle crushed the right thigh of the claimant/injured and caused other grievous injuries as well. Consequently, on 14.07.2010, the claimant/injured filed a claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of MV Act , bearing MACT No. 202/2010 before the learned MACT seeking compensation from the owner and driver of the offending bus for the injuries caused to him in the motor accident dated 14.05.2010 and impleaded the insurer (appellant herein) of the offending bus as well. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED MACT AND IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 04.06.2014:

3. Mr. Ashok Kumar/driver4 (Respondent No. 2 herein) and Mr. Satish Pal/owner5 (Respondent No. 8 herein) of the offending bus were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 25.08.2011 passed by the Learned Tribunal.

4 Section 2(9) of MV Act : “driver” includes, in relation to a motor vehicle which is drawn by

5 Section 2(30) of MV Act : “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;

4. The insurance company (appellant herein) filed a written statement wherein it admitted that the offending bus was insured with it at the time of the accident. However, the case set up by the appellant/insurance was that the permit issued to the offending vehicle/bus by the RTO, Ghaziabad, U.P. did not allow for plying it in the Delhi jurisdiction, hence, as per the terms of the insurance policy, the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant/injured in the event of the violation of a permit clause by the driver/owner of the offending vehicle.

5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned tribunal:

i. Whether the petitioner Saurabh Khanna son of Sh. Vinod Kumar sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e. private bus bearing registration no, DL IPA 5421 by respondent no. 1 on 14.05.2010 at about 8.50 pm at Jawahar Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of police station Karawal Nagar?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation. If so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?

iii. Relief.

6. As regards the Issue No.1, relying upon the clear and consistent testimony of the claimant/injured as well as the criminal case record pertaining to the motor accident in question, including but not limited to the FIR, Recovery memo, and Mechanical Inspection Report of the vehicle, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant had satisfactorily proved that the accident in question had in fact occurred due to the involvement of the offending vehicle/bus and the rash and negligent manner in which it was being driven by its driver. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal decided the said issue in the affirmative. This finding is not assailed by the appellant in