Shri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ajay Singh learned counsel for claimants.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant, owner of the motor vehicle being aggrieved of the award dated 30.8.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in claim case no.118 of 2014 on the ground that learned claims tribunal has recorded a finding that vehicle in question was not having a valid permit and driving license was not produced on record, therefore, vehicle being run against the conditions of insurance policy, insurance company shall pay the compensation and will be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
It is submitted that issue no.2, as to whether driver had an effective and valid licence has been decided in favour of the owner of the motor vehicle and therefore, there could not have been any liability fastened on owner of the motor vehicle by recording a conclusion contrary to the finding in regard to issue no.2.
Learned counsel for the appellant however, admits that vehicle in question was not having permit as per the requirement of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and further admits that vehicle in question is not covered under any of the exceptions provided under Sub Section 3 of Section 66 exempting a vehicle from having a valid permit.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the insurance policy bus was registered as a private carrier and since it was not used for and in connection with his trade or business otherwise then for hire or reward therefore, there was no need for a permit.
Definition of 'private service vehicle', is provided under Section 2(33) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under:-
(33) "private service vehicle" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes;
Definition of public service vehicle is provided under Section 2 (35) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under:-
(35) "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage;
and that of a transport vehicle under Section 2(47) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under :-
(47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;
Permit is defined under Section 2(31) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under :-
(31) "permit" means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle;
Thus cogent reading of the definitions of a permit, a private service vehicle, a public service vehicle and transport vehicle it is apparent that a transport vehicle is one which includes an educational institution's bus or a private service vehicle. The requirement of having a permit is for use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle.Thus once it is admitted that bus was plying to carry students of the school i.e., appellant and there is no evidence that no hire charges were charged by the school for carrying the children of the school in the said bus then it will fall within the definition of transport vehicle under Section 47(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus necessarily is required to fulfil possession of a permit as per the provisions contained in Section 66(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Violation of a 'permit', condition is a fundamental breach of the policy and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned award directing the insurance company to pay and then recover the amount of compensation from the appellant owner of the bus.
Shri Ajay Singh at this stage submits that learned claims tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.18,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary compensation which needs to be enhanced to Rs.70,000/-. Thus there will be addition of Rs.52,000/- in the amount awarded by learned claims tribunal and to this extent award is modified.
Let the record be sent back forthwith and if any pre-deposit has been made under Section 173 then that may be remitted to the learned claims tribunal to be adjusted from the amount to be disbursed finally in favour of the claimants.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021 VS