Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh v. 1
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:27208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1576 of 2019 Ghanshyam Mirdha S/o Late Bejram Mirdha, Aged About 50 Years R/o Mahalpara, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahsamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Sarla Verma W/o Late Shyamlal Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Lakhagarh Post Pithaura, Tehsil Pithaura, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Khushi Verma D/o Late Shyamlal Verma Aged About 14 Years Legal Guardian Of Respondent No. 2 To 4 Is Respondent No. 1 Mother Smt. Sarla Verma, R/o Lakhagarh Post Pithaura, Tehsil Pithaura, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Tanya Verma D/o Late Shyamlal Verma Aged About 12 Years Legal Guardian Of Respondent No. 2 To 4 Is Respondent No. 1 Mother Smt. Sarla Verma, R/o Lakhagarh Post Pithaura, Tehsil Pithaura, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Khyati Verma D/o Late Shyamlal Verma Aged About 10 Years Legal Guardian Of Respondent No. 2 To 4 Is Respondent No. 1 Mother Smt. Sarla Verma, R/o Lakhagarh Post Pithaura, Tehsil Pithaura, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Ganeshi Verma W/o Vishram Verma Aged About 80 Years R/o Lakhagarh, Post- Pithaura, Tehsil - Pithaura, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sohan Lal Banjara S/o - Dasharu Banjara Aged About 40 Years R/o Vill. - Balasi (Nayakpara), P.S.- Saraipali, District Mahasamund Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.04 10:31:48 +0530 -2- Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 7 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Office, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
“29. We may consider the matter from another angle. Section 149(2) of the 1988 Act enables the insurers to raise defences against the claim of the claimants. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act one of the defences which is available to the insurer is that the vehicle in question has been used for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle was used. Such a statutory defence available to the insurer would be obliterated in view of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh case [New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh, (2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] .” 12. The 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 on a better pedestal vis-à-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 the insurer. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding the insurer liable.” 13. Further in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Anr. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 558, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:- -8- “24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction.” …... 14. In the case at hand, no document of any nature has been produced by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle to prove that on the date of accident there was valid and effective permit with the appellant for plying the offending vehicle. Merely submitting application for obtaining permit does not fulfill the requirement of the Act of 1988. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants heavily relied upon the order dated 27.12.2014 (Ex.D-3) passed by the concerned RTO to submit that it is an order of granting permit in respect of offending vehicle No. CG-06- H-0135 for the route from Raipur to Paikin- Putka. Perusal of the order dated 27.12.2017 shows that while passing the order granting permit to applicant, the RTO has imposed 13 conditions. Condition No.9 which is relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case is extracted below for ready reference: “9. vkosnd bl vkns’k dh lwpuk izkfIr ds 30 fnol ds vUnj vfuok;Z :i ls ijfeV izkIr djds okgu dk lapkyu -9- izkjaHk djsxk] vU;Fkk ;g vkns’k Loeso fujLr ekuk tkosxk A 16. Though it is the case of the appellant that on the date of accident permit was available in the office of RTO and he could not collect the same, however, there is no material to show that on the date of accident there was any valid permit available with the owner of the bus or that from the date of passing of order dated 27.12.2017 (Ex.D-3) any permit was obtained by the appellant/owner within a period of 30 days. 17. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of all evidence available on record has rightly arrived at the conclusion that owner of the offending vehicle failed to produce ‘permit’ of the offending vehicle and in absence of it, will be breach of conditions of insurance policy. Learned Claims Tribunal rightly exonerated non-applicant/insurance company from its liability to pay amount of compensation and fastened liability upon Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle to pay amount of compensation to claimants. 18. For the foregoing discussions and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Challa Bharathamma (supra) and Amrit Paul Singh (supra), I do not find any good ground in the appeal to interfere with the impugned award. Appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen
Arguments
For Appellant (s) of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate : Mr. Balraj Gupta, Advocate on behalf For Resp No. 1 to 5 : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Resp. No.6 : None appears though served For Resp. No.7 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukah, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 20/06/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle challenging award of compensation passed by learned Chief Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) vide award dated 17.05.2019 passed in Claim Case No.655 of 2017. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) pleading therein that on 27.03.2017 Shyam Lal Verma boarded in passenger bus No.CG-06/H-0135 as a passenger for travelling from Pithora to Raipur. The bus was being driven by non-applicant No.1 Sohan Lal Banjara. When bus reached between river turning and Paragaon at about 8.45 am, non-applicant No.1 drove it rashly and -3- negligently and dashed the metador from its rear side, due to which, passenger Shyam Lal Verma, received fatal injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased Shyam Lal Verma was a 39-year-old healthy and strong young man, was working as a bus driver at Maa Sharda Travels, Pandri, Raipur and was earning of Rs. 12,000/- per month. Due to his sudden death, his family is facing financial crisis. Claimants have prayed for total compensation of Rs. 50,80,000/- from non-applicants. 3. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 have jointly submitted their written statement denying the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that vehicle in question is insured with non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company for the period from 13.07.2016 to 12.07.2017. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No. 1 with utmost care at normal speed. Claim application has been filed on the basis of fabricated and false facts, therefore, claim application submitted by the applicants be dismissed. 4. In its written statement, non-applicant No.3/insurance company denied the accident of bus number CG-06H-0135 and motor accidental death of Shyam Lal Verma. It was pleaded that the claimants have exaggerated the amount of compensation and non-applicant No.3/ insurance company is not responsible for paying it. It has been additionally stated that at the time of accident, driver of the bus did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the bus. The said bus did not have a permit and fitness as well. As the bus did not have the permit, Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been added in the charge-sheet. At the time of accident, bus was carrying more -4- passengers than its seating capacity, and hence, the conditions of the insurance policy have been violated, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, caused accident, in which Shyam Lal Verma suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that as on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being plied without any valid and effective permit, conditions of the insurance policy has been violated, exonerated non-applicant No.3 from its liability to pay amount of compensation and held non-applicants No. 1 & 2 (Driver and Owner) liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the claimant as Rs.12000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.18,25,000/ -. 6. Sole ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant/owner is that on the date of accident vehicle- passenger bus bearing registration number CG-06-H-0135 was covered under a valid and subsisting permit issued by the competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He submits that although the physical copy of the said permit was not available with the owner at the time of the accident, it was, in fact, deposited with the Regional Transport Office (RTO)., therefore, no breach of statutory provisions or condition of insurance policy can be attributed to the vehicle owner on this ground. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently opposes submission of learned counsel for the appellant and submit -5- learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record fastened liability upon the appellant/non- applicant No.2/owner of the offending vehicle to pay amount of compensation to claimants which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused records of claim case. 9. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, non-applicant No.2/owner of the vehicle, on the objection raised by non-applicant No.3, that there was no valid permit on the date of accident, has examined Moti Lal Mirgha as NAW1 who in his evidence stated that on 13.05.2016 for obtaining permanent permit for vehicle-Bus No. CG-06-H-0135, requisite fee had been deposited and vide order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the RTO permit has been granted for the said bus for a period of 5 years. Order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the RTO is marked as Ex.D-3. In para-5 of his cross-examination he admitted that except Ex.D-3 no document has been produced. He admitted that in Ex.D-3 it is mentioned that applicant therein shall obtain permit within 30 days of the order of competent authority, or else, order granting permit will be deemed to be cancelled. He has not produced copy of permit obtained after order. He further admitted that no permit has been obtained within a prescribed period of 30 days after passing of the order dated 27.12.2017. He further admitted that, as there was no valid permit on the date of accident, offence under Section 66/192 has also been added in the charge sheet. 10. Chapter-V of the Act of 1988 deals with Control of Transport Vehicle. -6- Section 66 (1) of the Act of 1988 provides for necessity for permits, which reads as under : “66. Necessity for permits.-(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage: Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not: Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him. [Provided also that where a transport vehicle has been issued any permit or permits, as well as a licence under this Act, such vehicle may be used either under the permit or permits, so issued to it, or under such licence, at the discretion of the vehicle owner]” 11. Perusal of aforementioned provision would show that, it clearly envisages the requirement of permit has been made mandatory for use of vehicle as 'Transport Vehicle' in any public place for carrying passengers or goods. 12. In the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 517, Hon’ble Supreme Court -7- while considering the effect of plying of a vehicle on a public road without permit has held thus: “9. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] it was observed as follows : (SCC p. 236, para 29)