Plying a vehicle beyond the specified route permit limit does not constitute a fundamental breach of insurance policy conditions sufficient to exonerate the insurance company from third-party liability, unless it occurs during prohibited activities like racing or speed testing.

Judgment

1. Since both the misc. appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 25.03.2017 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Laxmangarh (Alwar) [for short ‘the learned Tribunal’] in Claim Application Letter No. 13/2016, hence, both the civil misc. appeals are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3518/2017 has been filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal and so also the order of the learned Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from the joint liability to pay the compensation amount. The challenge in the aforesaid appeal is in regard to the findings and the observations given by the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No.3 and so also the enhancement of the compensation amount which is a part of the issue No.4.

3. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4207/2017 has been filed by the registered owner of the offending vehicle as regards the findings of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No.3 and exonerating the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle from the joint liability of compensation amount to the claimants.

4. Learned counsels appearing for the claimants as well as the registered owner of the offending vehicle submitted that the learned Tribunal has arrived to the conclusion in respect of issues No. 1 and 2 holding that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-PA-3275 which was duly insured with the respondent- Insurance Company on the date the alleged accident took place. It is also submitted that a valid insurance policy was in effect of the offending vehicle by the Insurance Company on the date of alleged accident and therefore, the Insurance Company is also jointly and severally liable for paying the compensation amount to the claimants. Counsels also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not taken care of the fact that the offending vehicle was having a valid permit on the relevant date and also the learned Tribunal has ignored the terms and conditions of the insurance policy wherein limitations as to use the vehicle have been given.

5. The learned Tribunal has given the finding in favour of the respondent- Insurance Company and against the claimants only on the ground that the offending vehicle was having a permit to ply on the route from a particular point to a particular point and the alleged accident took place beyond the route of permit on some nearby place and since the accident took place beyond the permit route as the learned Tribunal has exonerated the respondent- Insurance Company on the ground that that the plying of offending vehicle beyond the permit route, was in breach of the insurance policy. Such finding of the learned Tribunal is illegal and perverse for the reason that the breach of policy can be construed only in case the vehicle is being plied contrary to the provisions given under limitations as to use in the insurance policy. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants also submitted that the learned Tribunal has also not computed the compensation amount as per the provisions of law and the principles of law settled by the Courts. It is submitted that since the age of the deceased was 42 years, the claimants were entitled for future prospects @ 30% under the head of loss of income. He also submitted that the claimants were also entitled for the loss of consortium @ Rs.48,400