1 Claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar in a petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the 1988 Act’) seeking compensation on account of death of Sumitra who lost her life at the age of 62 years in a motor vehicular accident dated 12.08.2018.

2 Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,23,600/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Insurance company was directed to pay the amount to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, as the owner and driver failed to produce route permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle.

3 Owner has filed cross-objections assailing findings recorded by the Tribunal on issues No.2 & 3 asserting that the Tribunal erred in granting recovery rights to the insurer.

4 The Tribunal tabulated the compensation as under :-

8. Funeral expenses Rs.15000/-

Total Rs.5,23,600/-

5 Counsel for the claimants submit that the deceased ought to have been assessed as a homemaker. Her monthly income should have been assessed @Rs.15,000/- per month. He further submits that only one of the claimants has been awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium. In terms of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors., 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 333, the same should have been awarded to both the claimants. From the records of the case, it is evident that the Tribunal relied upon minimum wages notified by State of Haryana and assessed the income of the deceased accordingly. She was 62 years of age; no future prospect is admissible. However, counsel for the claimants is right in contending that loss of consortium ought to have been awarded to both the claimants. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent that each of the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.48,400/- on account of loss of consortium.

6 Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate, has drawn attention of this Court to the written statement filed by insurance company to submit that in the preliminary objections, no plea was raised with respect to absence of a fitness certificate or a route permit. He relies upon National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamlesh Kaur & ors., passed in FAO No.1379 of 2006 decided on 23.03.2006 to submit that the absence of route permit cannot be taken to be violation of breach of policy. Further, reliance is being placed upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta & ors., 2024 NCPHHC 17327 and Sandeep Singh Vs. Amrik Singh & ors., 2025 NCPHHC 23818 to submit that the absence of fitness certificate cannot be taken as ground to attribute contributory negligence. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, counsel asserts that absence of fitness certificate cannot be treated as breach of insurance policy and to grant recovery rights against insured.

7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

8 As per provision of the 1988 Act permit is required to ply a transport vehicle.

9 Reference can be made to National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chella Bharathamma, (2004) 4 RCR (Civil) 399 wherein Supreme Court held as under :-

“8. High Court was of the view that since there was no permit, the question of violation of any condition thereof does not arise. The view is clearly fallacious. A person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed at a better pedestal vis-`-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. Therefore, in terms of Section 149(2) defence is available to the insurer on that aspect. The acceptability of the stand is a matter of adjudication. The question of policy being operative had no relevance for the issue regarding liability of insurer. High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding the insurer liable.”

9. The residual question is what would be the appropriate direction. Considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper