Deviation from the permitted route is a technical violation, not a fundamental breach, preserving the insurer's liability.

1. The appellant was the second respondent in OP(MV) No. 117/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The respondents in the appeal were the petitioner and respondents 1 and 3 before the Tribunal.

2. The first respondent had filed the claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, seeking compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in an accident on 29.06.2013. It was his case that, while the he was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL - 35 / C - 2535, when he reached a place called Puthenkavu, Thripunithura, a bus bearing Registration No. KL - 15/9769(bus), driven by the second respondent, owned by the appellant and insured with the third respondent, hit the motorcycle. The first respondent sustained serious injuries and he claimed compensation from the respondents.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed a joint written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent.

4. The third respondent had filed a written statement, inter alia, contending that the appellant has plied through a route for which the bus had no permit. Therefore, there was violation of insurance policy conditions, hence, the third respondent has to be exonerated.

5. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, by permitting the first respondent to recover an amount of Rs. 1,07,500/- with interest and cost from the third respondent - insurer. However, on the finding that the appellant had violated the insurance policy conditions by deviating from the route mentioned in Ext. B1 permit, the Tribunal permitted the third respondent to pay the compensation amount and recover it from the appellant.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned direction, permitting the third respondent to recover the compensation amount from the appellant, the second respondent is in appeal.

7. Heard; Sri Alex Antony, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent - insurer.

8. The sole question that emanates for consideration in this appeal is whether the direction in the impugned award permitting the third respondent to recover the compensation amount from the appellant is sustainable in law?

9. In Pareed Pillai v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [MANU/KE/2412/2018 : 2018 (5) KHC 1 ], a Larger Bench (Five Judge Bench) of this Court has held as follows: -
"17. The stipulations under the above provisions clearly substantiate the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicle at all times. The above prescription converges on the point that Certificate of Registration, existence of valid Permit and availability of Fitness Certificate, all throughout, are closely interlinked in the case of a transport vehicle and one requirement cannot be segregated from the other. The transport vehicle should be completely fit and road worthy, to be plied on the road, which otherwise may cause threat to the lives and limbs of passengers and the general public, apart from damage to property. Only if the transport vehicle is having valid Fitness Certificate, would the necessary permit be issued in terms of S.66 of the Act and by virtue of the mandate under S.56 of the Act, no transport vehicle without Fitness Certificate will be deemed as a validly registered vehicle for the purpose of S.39 of the Act, which stipulates that nobody shall drive or cause the motor vehicle to be driven without valid registration in public place or such other place, as the case may be. These requirements are quite 'fundamental' in nature; unlike a cas