JUDGEMENT

(Passed on 03.02.2023) These appeals coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T This judgment shall govern the disposal of both the appeals (M.A.

Nos.743 of 2015 and 980 of 2015). For the sake of convenience, facts mentioned in M.A. No. 743 of 2015 are taken into consideration.

2. These Misc. Appeals under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been filed against the award dated 24.6.2015 passed in Claim Case No. 15/2013 by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lahar, District Bhind, whereby learned Claims Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation.

3. The facts in brief to decide these appeals are that appellant - claimant preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for realising an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for the permanent disability sustained by him in road traffic accident dated 27.6.2012 involving bus bearing registration No. UP92 9202. On the fateful day, Respondents No. 1 and 2 were the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively and the aforesaid vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 – insurance company. Respondents filed their written statement and denied all the allegations.

4. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and after taking into consideration the facts and material available on record partly allowed the claim petition holding appellant – claimant entitled for an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,46,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and directed respondents No. 1 and 2 – owner and driver of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation amount exonerating respondent No. 3 – insurance company from the liability on the ground that at the time of accident, vehicle in question did not have valid rout permit.

5. The common arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals are that the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly decided that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further argued that the insurance company neither produced any evidence nor any competent authority has been examined in support of invalid rout permit, therefore, the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from liability to pay the compensation is against the settled principle of law.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant – claimant argued that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being plied for maintenance and for the same rout permit is not required at all. It is further argued that even if any breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy are committed then it is the matter between owner, driver and insurance company for that claimant being a third party may not be punished.

7.Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 (appellants in M.A. No. 980 of 2015) – owner and driver of the offending vehicle argued that since the registered owner of the offending vehicle lost entire control over the offending vehicle after executing the contract with Jahar Singh (respondent No. 3 in M.A. No. 980 of 2015), therefore, respondent No. 1 – owner is not liable to pay the compensation. In support of his submission, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 relied upon the case law of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi & Ors., [Civil Appeal No. 5796 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 22778 of 2005) decided on 11.12.2007) .

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 – insurance company argued that the finding of learned Claims Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation is in accordance with settled principle of law as at the time of accident, offending vehicle was not being plied as per its rout permit which is the violation of the terms and co