Judgment related to Permit under MV Act

 Judgment related to Permit under MV Act

 

1.IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that offending vehicle was being plied without permit duty of IC to verify the fact that permit of vehicle was valid or not at the time of insuring the vehicle IC having insured the vehicle without valid permit

cannot seek exemption from liability

2011 ACJ 1683 (UTK)

However, P&H High Court has taken a contrary view in a case reported in 2018 ACJ 649 (P&H) – 2004 ACJ 2094

(SC) NII Com v/s. Challa Bharathamma.

2. Permit IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that owner of ‘Taxi’, which hit the pedestrians had violated terms of policy as ‘taxi’ could not have been used in a public place after expiry of permit policy was found to be valid no case of IC that passengers were being carried for hire and reward and policy did not cover the case of TP victim did not suffer injuries while travelling in the ‘taxi’ for hire or reward mere expiry of permit would not absolve IC to pay compensation, as no provision of MV Act is shown by IC to point out that owner of ‘taxi’ was under legal obligation, not to ply ‘taxi’ after the expiry of permit

2011 ACJ 2242 (KER)

2 – A. Permit of the offending vehicle had expired before the date of Accident, whether in such situation, IC can be held responsible? Held ; No.

2017 ACJ 825 (Mad)

3. Vehicle was insured but not having valid permit breach of policy order of pay and recover passed.

2012 AAC 3234, 2016 ACJ 365 (P&H)

4. Valid permit IC sough to avoid its liability on the ground that terms and conditions of the policy is violated Whether sustainable. Held ; No. 2013 ACJ 788

5. Route permit – Breach of policy When there is breach of policy, IC is not liable to pay amount of compensation.

2013 ACJ 1008. Similar view is taken by HP High

Court in the case of OI Com. v/s Samila, 2013 ACJ 2785, 2017 ACJ 1076 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 1082 (P&H), 2019 ACJ 833 (HP)

IC is liable to satisfy the TP claim even if route permit is violated.2014 ACJ 1597

(P&H) – NII Com. v/s Anuradha. Also see 2014 ACJ

2039 – Pawan Kumar v/s Jaswant Kaur, 2016 ACJ

970 (Kar), 2016 ACJ 2145 (HP), 2017 ACJ 635

(P&H), 2017 ACJ 650 (Kar), 2017 ACJ 2205 (Gau),

2017 ACJ 2383 (P&H), 2018 ACJ 1810 (P&H), 2018

ACJ 1858 (Bom)

5 – A. When there is no route permit at all, IC cannot be held responsible to pay amount of compensation but order of Pay and Recover can be passed.

2017 ACJ 766, 2017 ACJ 2205 (Gau), 2018 ACJ 2430 (SC) –

Rani v/s. NI Com.

5 – B. Police deposed before the Court that in the charge sheet route permit has not been produced – based on that Tribunal held that there is violation of route permit Whether sustainable? Held ;No. As IC could not prove the same by leading evidence in this regard.

2020 ACJ 13 (P&H)

6. Violation of Permit alleged that offending vehicle was being plied at the place where it had no valid permit to ply whether on this count IC can avoid it's liability. Held ; No. Order of Pay and Recover passed

2013 ACJ 2282 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 1076 (P&H), 2017

ACJ 1082 (P&H),2017 ACJ 1173 (Mad).

7. Permit When can it be said owner/driver has violated terms and condition of the permit and same is fundamental breach.

2013 ACJ 2570 (Del). Mahender Singh v/s O.I.Com.

2013 ACJ 2589 (Del)

8. Route permit when there is violation of route permit, IC is not liable to pay amount of compensation order of Pay and Recover can be passed.

2014 ACJ 160 (HP)2004

ACJ 2094 (SC) – Challa Bharathamma followed. Also see 2015 ACJ 2094 (HP).

Contrary views are taken in 2014 ACJ 1284,

2015 ACJ 2754 (P&H) IC held not liable to pay compensation. Also see 2018 ACJ 118 (P&H) Hon'ble P & H High Court (Chandigarh Bench) has taken both the above views. Those judgments are reported in 2015 ACJ 1791 and 2015 ACJ 1793.

In 2015 ACJ 2754 (P&H) there is good discussion on Section 149 (2) (a) (i) (c) r/w Section 66 of M V Act and Permit.

Section 66 of the M V Act – route permit – violation of – route permit is said to be violated only when vehicle is used for goods

purpose against the valid permit of passenger vehicle.

2018 ACJ 2571 (P&H)

As per Sec. 66(3) of the MV Act there is no requirement to have permit for any transport vehicle if it is proceeding empty to any place for the other purpose. 2019 ACJ 2939 (Del)

2017 ACJ 1919 (P&H) it has been held that when on the

date of accident, there was no permit, IC can't be held liable to pay compensation.

8 – A. Violation of Route permit, does not absolve IC to avoid its liability. 2017 ACJ 168 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 282 (P&H) – 2013 ACJ 1213 (P&H) followed. 2020 ACJ 267 (Kar)

8-B. Offending vehicle met with in accident – accident occurred where the vehicle was not allowed to be plied as same was not having route permit – whether IC can be held liable – Held –

Yes. As violation of route permit can only entails penalty as same is relevant only for the purpose of levy of taxes.

2017 ACJ 1648 (UK)

8 - C – Violation of permit – vehicle used as ambulance as there was medical emergency – whether same can be termed as violation of permit? Held ; No.

2020 ACJ 222 (P&H)

9. Breach of policy and permit over loading order of pay and recover passed.

2014 ACJ 385 (Mad).

10. Permit IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground that driver of offending vehicle was not possessing authorization card Whether it amount to fundamental breach? Held ; No.

11. IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that offending vehicle was being plied without permit duty of IC to verify the fact that permit of vehicle was valid or not at the time of insuring the vehicle IC having insured the vehicle without valid permit

cannot seek exemption from liability 2011 ACJ 1683 (UTK)

12. On whose shoulder the responsibility to lies to prove that

owner had violated the terms and conditions of the Permit? Held

– no.

2015 ACJ 570 (Raj).

13. Permit – violation – Defence of IC is that offending vehicle was being driven by a driver authorised by the permit holder and not by permit holder himself and same was in violation of condition No.V of the permit and, therefore, IC cannot be held responsible to compensation – whether such defence is sustainable – Held ; No.

As such defence is not available u/s 149 (2) of M v Act.

2015 ACJ 1990 (Del)

14. Temporary Permit violation of there cannot be automatic

presumption that violation of provision of MV Act will amount to violation of terms and conditions of contract.

2015 ACJ 2592 (P&H).

15. Tribunal found that owner had no permit for plying auto

rickshaw thus he violated terms of the policy and permit

and exonerated IC– in appeal owner contended that he was

plying the vehicle without any passenger on the public road whether owner/driver is prohibited to ply vehicle without any passenger on the public road? Section 66 is limited to the use of vehicle as transport vehicle without a valid permit and it does not prohibit plying the vehicle without any passenger on the public road Held. No. IC held liable.

2016 ACJ 679 (Ker)

15 – A Section 39 and 66 of the M V Act non registration of

vehicle and no permit – death of the passenger in the auto rickshaw – driver of the auto rickshaw admitted that there was no registration and no permit when accident occurred – whether IC can be exonerated? Held yes. But order of pay and recover is passed –

2019 ACJ 3091 (Bom)

But the vontrary view has been taken in 2021 ACJ 384 (Mad)

16. Vehicle which met with an accident was being plied without the route permit – It is a settled principle of law that non possession of route or deviation from route does not constitute a defence in favour of IC u/s 149(2) – 2018 ACJ 2804 (P&H)

17. Tribunal held that the IC has insured the vehicle without verifying the fact that whether vehicle has the permit or not and held IC liable whether sustainable in eye of law? Held ; No.

2022 ACJ 37

(Guj)

18. Owner and diver of the offending vehicle failed to prove valid permit IC exonerated and order of pay and recovered passed. 2022 ACJ 1465 (Guj)