Durg, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Lakeshwar Sahu S/o Late Luman Kumar Sahu Aged About 13 Years
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2025:CGHC:34275 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1592 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Permanand Building, G E Road Near Rajendra Park Chowak Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C G 04 E 4256 (Appellant No.1) (Respondent No.3), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Lakeshwar Sahu S/o Late Luman Kumar Sahu Aged About 13 Years Respondent No. 1 Under The Guardianship Of Mother Smt. Pushpa Bai Sahu W/o Late Luman Kumar Sahu R/o Village Pathriya, Post - Medesra Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 1), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tijauram Yadav S/o Madho Ram Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village - Kodiya, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 E 4256 (Respondent No. -2) Non- Appellant No. - 1), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Savindrer Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh Rekhi, Age - Major, R/o 55/20 Nehru Nagar West Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 E 4256 (Respondent No. -2) Non- Appellant No. -1), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1575 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manege, Permanand Building, G. E. Road, Near Rajendra Park Chowak, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 E 4256..........(Res. No. 3), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Chitralekha Banjare Rajendra Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kodiya Police Station- Nandani, Tahsil- Dhamda, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh........(Claimant No.1), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajendra Banjare S/o Bhakalu Banjare Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Kodiya Police Station- Nandani, Tahsil- Dhamda, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh........(Claimant No.2), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 3 - Kumari Bharti Banjare D/o Rajendra Banjare R/o Village Kodiya Police Station- Nandani, Tahsil- Dhamda, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh........(Claimant No.3), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Digvijay Banjare S/o Rajendra Banjare Aged About 12 Years Under The Guardianship Of Father Res. No. 2, R/o Village Kodiya Police Station- Nandani, Tahsil- Dhamda, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh........(Claimant No.4), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tijauram Yadav S/o Madho Ram Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Kodiya, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 E 4256.......(Non-Appellant No.1), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Savinder Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh Rekhi R/o 55/20 Nehru Nagar West Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 E 4256.......(Non Appellant No.2), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1548 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Permanand Building, G.E. Road, Near Rajendra Park Chowk, Durg. Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 E 4256., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Laxminath Sahu S/o Kashiram Aged About 50 Years Cast Teli, R/o Village Paroda, Durg Chhattisgarh............Claimant No. 1, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha District 2 - Smt. Kumaribai W/o Laxminath, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Paroda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh............Claimant No. 2, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Teejan D/o Laxminath Sahu, Aged About 14 Years Under The Guardianship Of Father Respondent No. 1 Claimant No. 1 Laxminath Sahu, S/o Kashiram Sahu, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Paroda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh............Claimant No. 3, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tijauram Yadav S/o Madho Ram Yadav, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Kodiya, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 E 4256.............Non-Appellant No. 1, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Savinder Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh Rekhi, Age- Major, R/o 55/20 Nehru Nagar West Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 E 4256.............Non-Appellant No. 2, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1556 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Permanand Building, G.E.Road, Near Rajendra Park Chowak, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg 3 Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 E 4256...............Respondent No. 3, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Hemlata Sahu W/o Late Rishi Kumar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Paroda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh............Claimant No. 1, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Arjun Sahu S/o Late Rishi Kumar Sahu, Aged About 15 Years Under The Guardianship Of Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Hemlata Sahu. R/o Village Paroda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh............Claimant No. 2, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Manju Sahu D/o Late Rishi Kumar Sahu, Aged About 13 Years Under The Guardianship Of Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Hemlata Sahu. R/o Village Paroda, Durg Chhattisgarh............Claimant No. 3, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha District 4 - Karan Sahu S/o Late Rishi Kumar Sahu, Aged About 11 Years Under The Guardianship Of Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Hemlata Sahu. R/o Village Paroda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh............Claimant No. 4, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ajay Sahu S/o Late Rishi Kumar Sahu, Aged About 8 Years Under The Guardianship Of Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Hemlata Sahu. R/o Village Paroda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh............Claimant No. 5, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sukhlal Sahu S/o Jagnnath Sahu, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Paroda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh............Claimant No. 6, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Ketki Bai Sahu W/o Sukhlal Sahu, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Durg Paroda, Chhattisgarh............Claimant No. 7, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha District 8 - Tijauram Yadav S/o Madho Ram Yadav, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Kodiya, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 E 4256..............Non-Appellant No. 1, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 9 - Savinder Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh Rekhi, Age- Major, R/o 55/20 Nehru Nagar West Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 E 4256...............Non-Appellant No. 2, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1550 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Permanand Building, G.E. Road, Near Rajendra Park Chowak, Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 E 4256..............Respondent No. 3, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Pushpa Bai Sahu W/o Late Luman Kumar Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Pathriya, Post Madesra Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh...........Claimant No. 1, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 2 - Tijauram Yadav S/o Madho Ram Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Kodiya, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 E 4256..................Non-Appellant No. 1, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Savinder Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh Rekhi, Age-Major, R/o 55/20 Nehru Nagar West Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 E 4256..................Non-Appellant No. 2, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1709 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Permanand Building, G.E. Road, Near Rajendra Park Chowk Durg. Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 E 4256., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Pushpa Bai W/o Late Luman Kumar Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Pathria, Post Medesara, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 1), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohit Sahu S/o Late Luman Kumar Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Pathria, Post Medesara, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 2) 3 - Lakeshwar Sahu S/o Late Luman Kumar Sahu Aged About 13 Years Guardianship Of Mother Respondent No. 1, Smt. Pushpa Bai Sahu, R/o Village Pathria, Post Medesara, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 3), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tijauram Yadav S/o Madho Ram Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village - Kodiya, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 E 4256., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Savinder Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh Rekhi Major, R/o 55/20 Nehru Nagar West Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 E 4256., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Sunder Lal Sahu, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. R. K. Gomasta, Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Achyut Tiwari and Mr. Adarsh Patel, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate 5 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 18/07/2025 Order on Board 1. All these appeals arise out of the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.02.2015 and the consequent award dated 27.06.2018 passed in the respective claim petitions. In view of the commonality of facts and issues involved, the appeals have been clubbed, heard together, and are being
Decision
disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the present batch of appeals, including Appeal No. 1592/2018, arises from a common motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.02.2015 at approximately 6:00 P.M., near the petrol pump of Awadh Tamrakar, involving a collision between a Tata Magic vehicle (CG-07-T-1655) and a Truck (CG-04-E-4256). The victims were returning from Shiv Kokdi to Village Paroda when the truck, driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner from the Durg side, collided head-on with the Tata Magic, resulting in multiple casualties and injuries. A criminal case was registered as Crime No. 26/15 at Police Station Dhamdha under Sections 279, 337, 304 of the IPC and Sections 56/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Following the accident, six separate claim applications were filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the legal representatives of the deceased persons and the injured claimants. In all the cases, the Truck (CG- 04-E-4256) was identified as the offending vehicle, and the claimants sought compensation for death or bodily injuries resulting from the accident. The Insurance Company (Appellant) had insured the offending truck under Policy No. 192500/31/2015/8234 valid from 27.09.2014 to 26.09.2015 in the name of one Savinder Singh Rekhi. Claim Cases’ summary arising from the Accident are as follow : 6 Claimants Deceased/Injured Lokeshwar Sahu Injured Awarded Amount ₹ 41,991/- Chitralekha Banjare & Ors. Rupendra Banjare ₹ 6,24,403/- Pushpa Bai Sahu & Ors. (Deceased) Fatal Case (unspecified Victim) Claim Case No. 156/2015 161/2015 157/2015 203/2015 Pushpa Bai Sahu Injured 393/2016 Hemlata Sahu & Ors. Rishi Kumar Sahu (Deceased) [Unspecified] ₹ 10,000/- ₹ 8,86,000/- 428/2016 Laxminath Sahu & Ors. Kumari Kavita Sahu (Deceased) ₹ 6,10,000/- 1709/2018 Smt. Sushila Sahu & Sons Luman Kumar Sahu ₹ 38,80,000/- (Deceased) 3. In all these matters, the driver and owner of the offending truck failed to file written statements or appear before the Tribunal, resulting in ex parte orders against them. The learned Tribunal, in each case, granted permission under Section 170 of the MV Act to the Insurance Company to contest the claims on all available grounds. The primary defence of Insurance Company across all appeals was non-compliance with statutory requirements and breach of policy conditions, specifically the offending truck did not possess a valid permit as required under Section 66(1) of the MV Act. The truck lacked a fitness certificate as mandated by Section 84. The driver of the truck did not hold a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The permit stood in the name of Ravinder Singh Sidhu, while the insurance policy and registration were in the name of Savinder Singh Rekhi, indicating that the permit was not legally transferred under Section 82. The claimants failed to implead the driver, owner, and insurer of the Tata Magic, thus rendering the petitions defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties. In support of its contentions, the Insurance Company examined Shri S.R. Sahu (Assistant Manager) and Shri Mahendra Sharma (Assistant Grade-III, RTO, Raipur). They deposed and submitted official records indicating that the permit for the 7 offending truck was valid from 26.10.2012 to 26.10.2017, but it remained untransferred from the original permit holder, no fitness certificate existed on the date of the accident and the driver did not possess a valid licence. Despite these statutory violations and the denial of liability by the insurer, the Tribunal fastened liability upon the Insurance Company in all cases, awarding various sums as compensation to the claimants with interest at 7% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Learned Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal has grossly erred in not appreciating the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Sections 82, 84, and 86, which govern the legal regime concerning the transfer, validity, and enforcement of transport permits. The vehicle in question, bearing registration no. CG-04-E-4256, was originally owned by Shri Ravinder Singh Sidhu and subsequently sold to Shri Savinder Singh Rekhi, in whose name the insurance policy stood at the relevant time. However, despite this change of ownership, the transport permit remained in the name of the original permit holder, Shri Ravinder Singh Sidhu. The requirements of Section 82 were not complied with. This provision clearly mandates that a transport permit is non-transferable except with the prior permission of the Transport Authority. It further clarifies that such a permit shall not, without such permission, operate to confer upon the transferee any legal right to use the vehicle under the original permit. In the present case, there was no such permission or transfer. Despite this glaring non-compliance, the Tribunal failed to draw the necessary legal inferences and wrongly proceeded to fasten liability upon the insurer. It is further submitted that under Section 84 of the Act, general conditions attached to every permit require that the vehicle carry a valid certificate of fitness as per Section 56, and that it be maintained in accordance with the Act and the rules made thereunder. The evidence brought on record, particularly through the deposition of Shri S.R. 8 Sahu and Shri Mahendra Sharma, clearly established that the vehicle did not possess a valid fitness certificate on the date of the accident. Indeed, the police investigating officer, having noted this violation, registered an offence under Sections 56/177 of the Act. As a result, the offending vehicle was being operated illegally. Section 86 also provides for suspension or cancellation of the permit in such cases of breach, yet the Tribunal failed to consider these violations before passing the award. The learned Tribunal also failed to appreciate a significant inconsistency in the record, that while the registration certificate and insurance policy stood in the name of Savinder Singh Rekhi, the transport permit continued in the name of Ravinder Singh Sidhu. This clearly indicates that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was being operated by a person who had no legal authority under the permit, and hence the usage of the vehicle itself was unauthorized and in breach of statutory provisions. In such circumstances, liability could not have been imposed upon the appellant-insurer. It is an admitted position on record that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, failed to file their written statements and did not appear before the learned Tribunal to lead evidence in support of their defence. As recorded in paragraph 4 of the impugned award, the proceedings continued ex parte against them. No attempt was made by the registered owner or driver to produce any documents, including the insurance policy, valid permit, registration certificate, or certificate of fitness. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference under the principles of law and held that the owner had failed to comply with the conditions of the policy and statutory obligations. The Insurance Company examined Shri S.R. Sahu (Assistant Manager) and Shri Mahendra Sharma (Assistant Grade-III, RTO, Raipur), who clearly deposed that the transport permit had not been transferred to Shri Savinder Singh Rekhi, the vehicle did not possess a valid fitness certificate on the date of the accident, and the driver did not possess 9 a valid and effective driving licence. Despite these categorical and uncontroverted pieces of evidence, the learned Tribunal ignored the testimony and passed an award fastening liability upon the appellant-insurer. The appellant had also specifically raised the plea that the driver of the offending truck did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to operate a transport vehicle. This is a material breach of both the statutory provision under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as a clear violation of the insurance policy conditions. The Tribunal, however, failed to consider this aspect of the case altogether, resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice. In view of the multiple statutory violations, non-transfer of the permit, absence of fitness certificate, driver lacking a valid licence, and unauthorized operation of the vehicle, the learned Tribunal wrongly fastened liability upon the appellant-insurer for payment of compensation. The awards in claims, are thus not legally sustainable. It is submitted that in light of the aforementioned breaches, the owner alone ought to have been held liable, and the insurer stands absolved of any liability in terms of Section 149(2) of the Act. It is further submitted that the claimants failed to implead the driver, owner, and insurer of the Tata Magic vehicle (CG-07-T-1655) which was also involved in the accident. The non-joinder of these necessary parties renders the claim petitions legally defective, and this issue was not addressed by the learned Tribunal at all. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned awards passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the batch of connected claim cases arising out of the accident dated 17.02.2015, and to absolve the appellant-insurer of any liability in view of the proven violations of statutory provisions and policy conditions. He placed reliance the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Versus Tata AIG GIC, reported in 2018 (7) SCC 558, Gohar Mohammad V/s U.P. State, reported in 2023 (4) SCC 381, M/s Middle High School V/s HDFC GIC, SLP 31406/2017, Pareed 10 pillai Vs. Oriental Insurance Co-, AIR 2009 Kerala 9, Gurmeet Singh V/s New India Ass.Co.Ltd. passed by Delhi High Court, MAC No. 1289/2014 Adesh Kumar Vs Smt Satrupa Bai and ors. 5. Learned counsel for the respective respondents jointly submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened liability upon the appellant- insurer in light of the admitted fact that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. CG-04-E-4256 was duly insured with the appellant on the date of the accident under Policy No. 192500/31/2015/8234, valid from 27.09.2014 to 26.09.2015. The insurance contract being in force at the relevant time establishes the liability of insurer to indemnify third-party risks, as mandated under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that the primary obligation of insurer is to compensate third-party victims, particularly where the accident is undisputed, the vehicle is identified, and the insurance policy is valid. All these criteria are met in the present case. The appellant has relied upon alleged statutory violations under Sections 82, 84, and 86 of the M.V. Act to deny liability. However, these are inter se matters between the insurer and the insured and do not affect the rights of third-party claimants, especially in the absence of any fraud or collusion being attributed to the claimants. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the permit was not transferred under Section 82, or that the fitness certificate was not available, such technical breaches do not exonerate the insurer of its statutory obligation to compensate innocent third parties under a valid policy. The breach, if any, is between the insurer and the insured, and the proper remedy for the insurer lies in pursuing recovery under the doctrine of "pay and recover", not in denying compensation to the victims’ families altogether. It is contention of learned counsel for appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, however, it is a settled principle of law that in order to avoid 11 liability under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, the insurer must not only plead but also prove that there was a willful and conscious breach of the policy condition by the insured. No such evidence has been produced to establish that the owner had knowingly allowed an unlicensed person to drive the vehicle. Moreover, the own witnesses of appellant did not produce any clear documentary proof that the driver was absolutely unlicensed or that there was any element of intentional violation by the owner. In the absence of cogent proof, the insurer cannot escape liability to third-party victims merely by invoking policy defences. The fact that the registered owner and driver of the truck failed to file their written statements or appear before the Tribunal does not ipso facto discharge the insurer from its burden under the law. The Tribunal granted liberty under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the appellant-insurer to contest the claim on all available grounds, including those available to the insured. It was therefore incumbent upon the insurer to lead evidence to conclusively establish the alleged breaches. Mere reliance on oral deposition of officials or presumptive inconsistencies cannot displace the presumption of liability arising from a valid insurance policy. It is significant to note that there is no allegation of fraud, fabrication, or collusion against the claimants. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck, as established from the FIR, site map, charge- sheet, and oral testimonies. A criminal case was duly registered as Crime No. 26/15 under Sections 279, 337, and 304 of the IPC, and Sections 56/177 of the M.V. Act. In light of foregoing submissions, the respondents' right to just compensation under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act remains unaffected by the alleged statutory violations raised by the insurer. The reliance placed on Section 82 regarding non-transfer of transport permit is wholly misplaced in the present context. The non-transfer of permit is a regulatory infraction, which may render the vehicle unfit for commercial use but does not vitiate the liability of the insurer toward third-party victims. In any 12 case, the insurer had full knowledge of the transfer, having issued a valid insurance policy in the name of Savinder Singh Rekhi, which implies its acceptance of the insurable interest and its obligation to indemnify third-party claims. The contention of learned counsel for appellant that the claim petitions are defective due to non-joinder of the driver, owner, or insurer of the Tata Magic vehicle is without merit. The accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck, as found by the Tribunal. The Tata Magic was the victim vehicle. In any event, the appellant did not take any steps to implead the said parties before the Tribunal despite having knowledge of the facts, and hence, it cannot now take advantage of its own omission. Further, the doctrine of composite negligence or contributory negligence, even if applicable, does not absolve the appellant of its primary liability under the insurance policy. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal has passed well-reasoned awards, having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record, including the accident report, site inspection, post-mortem reports, medical records, and evidence of the claimants. The quantum of compensation awarded in each claim is just, fair, and in accordance with the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, and other binding precedents. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the present batch of appeals preferred by the appellant-insurer as being devoid of merit; affirm the well-reasoned and legally sustainable awards passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in each of the claim petitions; and direct the appellant-insurer to satisfy the award amounts with interest, as determined by the Tribunal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents available on record. 13 7. Upon a comprehensive examination of the factual matrix of the case, the evidence adduced, the pleadings on record, and the relevant legal provisions, this Court finds that the core issue for determination in the present batch of appeals pertains to the liability of the appellant-insurance company to indemnify the claimants in light of clear statutory breaches committed by the insured. The factual position, which remains undisputed and uncontroverted, is that the offending vehicle, a truck bearing registration no. CG-04-E-4256, was at the time of the accident not possessed of a valid transport permit standing in the name of its then-owner, Shri Savinder Singh Rekhi. The transport permit had originally been granted in favour of the previous owner, Shri Ravinder Singh Sidhu, and was never lawfully transferred in accordance with Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is quoted hereunder for ready reference : “82. Transfer of permit. - (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. (2)Where the holder of a permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit may, for a period of three months, use the permit as if it had been granted to himself: Provided that such person has, within thirty days of the death of the holder, informed the transport authority which granted the permit of the death of the holder and of his own intention to use the permit: Provided further that no permit shall be so used after the date on which it would have 14 ceased to be effective without renewal in the hands of the deceased holder. (3)The transport authority may, on application made to it within three months of the death of the holder of a permit, transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit: Provided that the Transport Authority may entertain an application made after the expiry of the said period of three months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.” 8. Further, as per Section 84 of the Act, a valid permit must be accompanied by a certificate of fitness issued under Section 56, and the vehicle must comply with the requirements prescribed under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is quoted hereunder : “84. General conditions attaching to all permits. - The following shall be conditions of every permit (a)that the vehicle to which the permit relates carries valid certificate of fitness issued under section 56 and is at all times so maintained as to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder; (b)that the vehicle to which the permit relates is not driven at a speed exceeding the speed permitted under this Act; (c)that any prohibition or restriction imposed any fares or freight fixed by notification made under section 67 are observed in connection with the vehicle to which the permit relates; (d)that the vehicle to which the permit relates is not driven in contravention of the provisions of section 5 or section 113; (e)that the provisions of this Act limiting the hours of work of drivers are observed in connection with any vehicle or vehicles to which the permit relates; 15 (f)that the provisions of Chapters X, XI and XII so far as they apply to the holder of the permit are observed; and (g)that the name and address of the operator shall be painted or otherwise firmly affixed to every vehicle to which the permit relates on the exterior of the body of that vehicle on both sides thereof in a colour or colours vividly contrasting to the colour of the vehicle centered as high as practicable below the window line in bold letters.” 9. Moreover, Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that a permit is liable to be cancelled in the event of any breach of the conditions stipulated under Section 84. This includes instances where the vehicle is operated in violation of the conditions of the permit, without a valid permit, where the permit has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, or is being used for purposes other than those for which it was granted. Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is quoted hereunder : “86. Cancellation and suspension of permits. - (1) The Transport Authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit (a)on the breach of any condition specified in section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit, or (b)if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit, or (c)if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit, or \d)if the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or misrepresentation, or (e)if the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purposes for which the permit was granted, or (f)if the holder of the permit acquires the citizenship of any foreign country: 16 Provided that no permit shall be suspended or cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation. (2)The Transport Authority may exercise the powers conferred on it under sub-section (1) in relation to a permit granted by any authority or person to whom power in this behalf has been delegated under sub-section (5) of section 68 as if the said permit was a permit granted by the Transport Authority. (3)Where a Transport Authority cancels or suspends a permit, it shall give to the holder in writing its reasons for the action taken. (4)The powers exercisable under sub-section (1) (other than the power to cancel a permit) by the Transport Authority which granted the permit may be exercised by any authority or person to whom such powers have been delegated under sub-section (5) of section 68. (5)Where a permit is liable to be cancelled or suspended under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (e) of sub-section (1) and the Transport Authority is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case, it would not be necessary or expedient so to cancel or suspend the permit if the holder of the permit agrees to pay a certain sum of money, then notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), the Transport Authority may, instead of cancelling or suspending the permit, as the case may be, recover from the holder of the permit the sum of money agreed upon. (6)The powers exercisable by the Transport Authority under sub-section (5) may, where an appeal has been preferred under section 89, be exercised also by the appellate authority. (7)In relation to a permit referred to in sub- section (9) of section 88, the powers exercisable under sub-section (1) (other than the power to cancel a permit) by the Transport Authority which granted the permit, may be exercised by any Transport Authority and any authority or persons to whom power in this behalf has been delegated under sub-section (5) of section 68, as if the said permit was a 17 permit granted by any such authority or persons.” 10. In the present case, at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit in the name of the person operating it. Although the truck had been sold, the permit had not been transferred to the purchaser with the requisite permission of the transport authority, as mandated by Section 82. Consequently, the vehicle was being operated without a valid permit at the time of the accident. 11. In the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Upendra Rao, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that plying a vehicle without a permit is an infraction and the insurer is not liable. Relevant paragraph of the aforementioned judgment is quoted below : “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.” 12. In the matter of Amrit Paul Singh vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 it has been held that use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. Relevant paragraph is quoted below for ready reference : “24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on 18 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. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Lakhmi Chand [Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 45] in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 13. Full Bench of High Court of Kerala in the matter of Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. passed in MACA No. 2030 of 2015 has held as under : 19 “21. The question whether absence of valid Permit to a transport vehicle at the time of accident is a 'fundamental breach' or a 'technic breach' had come up for consideration again before the Apex Court recently in Amrit paul Singh and Another Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd and Others [2018 (3) KHC 197] The factual matrix in the said case is that, the rider of the motor cycle was knocked down to death by the offending truck on 19.02.2013 which led to the claim petition preferred by the legal heirs. resisted by the insurer, mainly contending that there was violation of policy conditions in so far as the offending truck was not having a valid Permit and the driver was not having a valid driving licence Based on the materials on record and placing reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court In Challa Upendra Rao's case [cited supra], the Tribunal, after fixing the quantum of compensation, directed the insurer to satisfy the same, with liberty to have it recovered from the insured. The said finding and reasoning came to be affirmed by the High Court, in turn leading to the proceedings before the Apex Court. After exhaustive discussion on the relevant provisions of law including Section 2 (28), 2 (31), 2 (47), 66, 149 and 166 of the M.V. Act 1988 and the various judgments rendered by the Apex Court at different points of time, including in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others [(2004) 3 SCC 297] and Challa Upendra Rao's case [cited supra], the Apex Court held that the offending truck was not having a valid Permit on the date of accident, which was not a technical breach to attract the picturmin Swaran Singhs' case [cited supra] [where also right of recovery was held as conferred on the insurer, once the breach was established try the insurer) It was also observed that, it was not a case where any of the exceptions under sub-section (3) of Section 66 wes attracted and further that, existence of a Permit of any nature was matter of documentary evidence. The Bench held that the exceptions carved out under Section 66 (3) of the Act are to be pleaded and proved. bx the insured/owner and this burden cannot be shifted to the shoulders of the insurer. It has accordingly been declared that, the use of a 20 transport vehicle in a public place without Permit is fundamental/statutory infraction and the principles laid town in Swaran Singh's case [cited supra] and Lakshmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance [(2016) 3 SCC 100] cannot be applicable in this regard. The Apex Court held, in such circumstances. that the verdict passed by the High Court affirming the stand of the Tribunal directing the insurer to satisfy the liability and to have it recovered from the owner/insured was in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh's case [cited supra] and other cases pertaining to 'pay and recover principle'. From the above, it is quite evident that the law stands settled by the Apex Court as per the decision Challa Upendra Rao' case [cited supra] and the latest ruling in Amrit paul's case [cited supra]. This being the position, the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Augustine V.M. Vs. Ayyappankutty @ Mani and others [cited supra] holding that the absence of valid Permit or Fitness Certificate is not a fundamental breach, but a technical breach and that no right of recovery can be given to the insurer is not at all correct. It accordingly stands overruled. Consequently, the dictum in Thara's case [cited supra] is restored and the contrary view expressed in Sethunath's case [cited supra] stands declared as incorrect.” 14. Considering the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, along with the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, it is evident that the permit for the offending vehicle was not duly transferred by the Transport Authority following the prescribed procedure. Consequently, on the date and at the time of the accident, the vehicle did not possess a valid permit. This constitutes a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thereby absolving the insurance company of liability. These breaches are fundamental in nature, not mere technical infractions, and strike at the root of the obligation of insurer to indemnify the insured. While it is true that under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company owes a statutory obligation to compensate third-party 21 victims, the same is not unconditional. Where fundamental statutory violations are established, as in the present case, Courts have evolved the principle of “pay and recover” whereby the insurer is directed to pay the award amount to the claimants in the first instance and is granted liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. This approach strikes a balance between the rights of innocent third-party claimants and the right of insurer to be indemnified by the breaching policyholder. This principle has been consistently followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, including in the judgments cited above. 15. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that although the insurer cannot be fastened with direct liability for the breaches committed by the vehicle owner, it must, in the interest of justice and in furtherance of the principles of benevolent legislation underlying the Motor Vehicles Act, be directed to satisfy the award in the first instance. Thereafter, the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. The appeals filed by the insurer, therefore, deserve to be allowed to the extent of modifying the finding of Tribunal on liability. 16. The impugned awards passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the extent they hold the insurance company directly liable, without acknowledging the statutory violations, are hereby set aside. It is held that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle did not possess a valid transport permit transferred in favour of the insured, nor a valid fitness certificate, thereby constituting a fundamental breach of statutory provisions and policy conditions. Accordingly, the insurance company cannot be held liable as of right to indemnify the owner. However, in view of the doctrine of “pay and recover”, and in the interest of justice and claimants’ welfare, the insurance company is directed to satisfy the award amount in each claim case in the first instance, along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The 22 insurance company shall thereafter be entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle, by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in each of the claim petitions is not disturbed and is affirmed. The rate of interest and apportionment, as determined by the Tribunal, shall also remain unaltered. 17. The connected appeals are allowed to the extent as indicated above. Shayna Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE 23 Head-Note A valid permit is a statutory requirement for operating a transport or commercial vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The permit does not transfer automatically with change of ownership. It is transferred by the appropriate transport Authority. In the absence of such transfer, there would be no permit and the insurer may lawfully repudiate any claim due to breach of policy terms.