A vehicle weighing less than 3,000 kg is exempt from permit requirements under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

The 2^nd respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod, in O.P.(MV) No.181 of 2017 seeks to challenge the award dated 22.08.2019, by which the Tribunal permitted the insurance company to make payment to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle - the appellant herein. The aforementioned direction issued by the Tribunal is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal, at the instance of the owner of the vehicle.

2. Sri. C.P. Peethambaran, the learned counsel for the appellant herein, relying on the provisions of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (for short, ‘Act’), would contend that the direction issued by the Tribunal permitting the insurance company to recover the compensation solely on the account of non-production of the permit as well as the fitness certificate was flawed. As regards the fitness certificate, he would also add that there was actually a fitness certificate for the vehicle in question, which is produced before this Court as Annexure – A1, which is valid from

15.04.2013 to 14.04.2014.

3. Per contra, Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar, the learned counsel for the insurance company, would submit that as regards the fitness certificate, the contention as above can be accepted. However, according to her, the requirement for producing a permit was not satisfied, and to that extent, the ultimate conclusion made by the Tribunal is only to be upheld.

4. As regards the requirement for producing the fitness certificate, in the light of Annexure – A1, produced before this Court, I find that the vehicle in question, in fact, had a valid fitness certificate, and to that extent, the findings contained in paragraph

19 of the impugned award require to be set aside.

5. The only subsisting question arising for consideration is with reference to the non-production of the permit, which was cited by the Tribunal as a violation on the part of the appellant as regards the insurance policy conditions.

6. It is with reference to the provisions of Section 66 of the Act that the necessity for obtaining permits has been laid down. No doubt, with reference to sub-section (1) thereunder, the owner of the vehicle is required to obtain a permit when the transport vehicle in question is being used for the transportation of “Goods”.

However, an exclusion has been provided with reference to sub-

section 3(i) of Section 66 of the Act, which reads as under:

“3(i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms;”

A reading of the aforementioned exclusion would show that in the case of a goods vehicle whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 3,000 kg, the requirement under sub-section (1) has been excluded. It is in the light of the aforementioned exclusion that the contention raised by Sri. C.P. Peethambaran, the learned counsel for the appellant herein, with reference to the certificate of fitness at Annexure – A1, requires to be appreciated.

7. A perusal of the certificate of fitness shows the unladen weight of the vehicle in question at 1665 kg – below the limit of 3,000 kg. That being the position, I am of the opinion that there was no requirement for a permit with reference to the provisions of Section 66 (1) of the Act as regards a goods vehicle concerned. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal as regards the violation of the policy conditions on the basis of the non-production of the permit also does not appear to be the correct finding.

8. In such circumstances, the finding in the impugned award that the insurance company would be entitled to recover the amount awarded from the appellant does not appear to be