IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 29.10.2025 Date of decision: 07.11 .2025 Punjab Bus Service Regd. Mansa through its Partner namely Amarjit Singh ..Appellant Versus Kewal Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr.Kuldeep Singh, Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Mr. Deepak Kumar and Ms. Jasjot Kaur, Advocates for the appellants Mr. Tarun Chawla, Advocate for respondent No.1 None for respondent No.2 Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company MANDEEP PANNU, J.

CM-20122-CII-2025

1. Allowed as prayed for. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

CM-20123-CII-2025

2. Allowed as prayed for. Sh. Amarjit Singh s/o Sh.Ved Raj is taken on record as Appellant, being partner of the Firm namely Punjab Bus Service in place of late Sh.Teja Singh s/o Sh.Chetain Singh, through whom appeal was filed.

CM-20124-CII-2025

3. Allowed as prayed for. Annexures A-1 and A-2 are taken on record.

Main appeal

4. This appeal is filed by the owner of the offending Bus against the award dated 06.05.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mansa (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) whereby compensation of Rs.2,51,884/- has been awarded in favour of claimant/respondent no.1, on account of injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident, which took place on 02.09.2000 and liability to satisfy the same has been fastened upon both owner(appellant herein) and driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant-injured has filed cross objections by way of reply to the appeal praying for enhancement of the awarded compensation.

Contentions on behalf of the Appellant (Punjab Bus Service)

5. In so far as appeal by Punjab Bus Service-appellant (owner) is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in exonerating the respondent– Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the insured. It was submitted that the offending bus was duly insured and the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The only ground on which the Insurance Company was absolved of liability was that the bus did not possess a route permit to ply from Mansa to Pakho, where the accident occurred.

6. Learned counsel argued that the evidence of RW–1 Jasdev Singh and RW–2 Jagjit Singh clearly established that the Head Office of the Punjab Bus Service was situated at Mansa and that the bus had been brought to Mansa for mechanical check-up and greasing on the morning of 02.09.2000. It was further contended that while proceeding for such repairs, a few passengers boarded the bus, but this by itself could not be construed as a deliberate or material breach of the route permit conditions. The deviation, if any, was purely technical and without any mens rea or profit motive.

Contentions on behalf of the Respondent – Insurance Company

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–Insurance Company supported the award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the vehicle was being plied on a route for which it had no valid permit. It was urged that the evidence of the conductor and mechanic shows that the bus was not on an empty run for mechanical repair but was carrying about 25–30 passengers from Mansa towards Pakho. Such carriage of passengers for hire and reward, on a route not covered by the permit, constituted a clear violation of the permit conditions and a breach of the terms of the insurance policy.

8. It was further argued that once the insured has used the vehicle for a commercial purpose beyond the territorial and route limits authorised under the permit, the insurer’s contractual obligation ceases. The Insurance Company, therefore, cannot be saddled with liability to indemnify an illegal act, and the learned Tribunal rightly fastened the liability exclusively upon the owner.

Findings and Decision of this Court

9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the evidence.

10. It is an admitted position that on