1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Murty Line, Infront Of v. 1 - Sachin Tiwari S/o. Shiv Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 26 Years R/o. Subhash
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:48841 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 800 of 2023 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Murty Line, Infront Of Krishi Upaj Mandi Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Of Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 17-Ga-5679) -- Non-Applicant No. 3 -- --- Appellant versus 1 - Sachin Tiwari S/o. Shiv Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 26 Years R/o. Subhash Ward, Bramhan Para, Jail Road, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh -- Claimant -- 2 - Balor Singh, S/o. Gurdayal Singh, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Pandripani, Infront Of Hira Cement Factory, Parpa Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. -17-Ga-5679) -- Non-Applicant No. 1 --
Legal Reasoning
3 - Smt. Davindar Kaur Jaswal W/o. Paramjit Jaswal, Aged About 42 Years R/o. Behind Shitla Hotel, Ganga Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh -- Non-Applicant No. 2 -- (Owner Of Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.-17-Ga- 5679) ---- Respondents For Petitioner For respondents : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 04.02.2023 passed by learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.127/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,01,000/- as compensation to the claimant and the liability of payment of -2- compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. The facts of the present case are that on 18.03.2017 at about 8:00 o’clock, Sachin Tiwari along with his friend namely, Roshan Kumar Das was going in a motorcycle, when they reached nearby Dogaghat Chowk, Tirath Singh Petrol pump in N.H. 30, the driver of offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.C.G.17-GA-5679 by driving it in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle, resultantly, Sachin Tiwari along with his friend fell down on road and due to sustained injures, Roshan Kumar Das died on the spot and Sachin Tiwari had sustained various injuries over his left leg. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record held that since the said vehicle was duly insured with the appellant (Insurance Company) and the Insurance Policy covered the risk of third party, proceeded to award compensation of Rs. 4,01,000/- to the claimant with interest component of 6% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the offending vehicle was being plied, was not covered by a valid permit. He would contend that the national permit was granted by the competent authority i.e. Regional Transport Office, Jagdalpur, Bastar for truck bearing registration No.C.G.17/GA/5679 bearing National Permit No.2012/1349 and the period of validity of the authorization was for one year i.e. from 17.07.2012 to 16.07.2013. Mr. Gulati would submit that as the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy, therefore, the learned Tribunal certainly fastened the liability with the insurance company. 3 5. Despite service of notice none appears on behalf of the respondents/claimants. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company at length and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 7. Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines "national permit" by clause (c) of the explanation appended thereto to mean "a permit granted by the appropriate authority to goods carriages to operate throughout the territory of India or in such contiguous States, not being less than four in number including the State in which the permit is issued as may be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the application". Mere taking of a national permit from the State Transport Authority is not sufficient to allow a vehicle to be plied outside the State. For such purposes i.e. plying the vehicle outside the State where it is registered, there is a need for "authorization". Such authorization is issued by the State Transport Authority upon payment of "authorization fee", an expression which is defined by clause (b) in the explanation appended to Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act so as to mean "the annual fee not exceeding one thousand rupees, which may be charged by the appropriate authority of a State to enable a motor vehicle, covered by the permit referred to in sub-sections (9) and (12) to be used in other State subject to the payment of taxes or fees, if any, levied by the States concerned". 8. Rule 87 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 being relevant may be quoted as under :- 87. Form, contents and duration of authorisation.-- (1) An application for the grant of an authorisation for a national permit shall be made in Form 46 and -4- shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 500 per annum in the form of a bank draft. (2) Every authorization shall be granted in Form 47 subject to the payment of the taxes or fees, if any levied by the States concerned. (2A) The authority which grants the authorisation shall inform the State Transport Authorities concerned the registration number of the motor vehicle, the name and address of the permit holder and the period for which the said authorisation is valid. (3) The period of validity of an authorisation shall not exceed one year at a time." 9. A perusal of form 47, as is referred to in the above mentioned Rule, would show that the authorization has to indicate the States where the vehicle is authorized to ply. 10. In the case at hand, the vehicle in question is registered by the transport authority at Jagdalpur. Since the accident had occurred within the territory of Chhattisgarh, the reference to there being default in taking authorization respecting the use of the vehicle outside the territory of Chhattisgarh is incorrect and improper. For being plied within the territory of Chhattisgarh, the vehicle was not required to be covered by any payment of authorization fee. 11. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed. Rekha Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge