Court No. - 72
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3114 of 2011 Appellant :- Iffco Tokio General Isnurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Maya Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Mehrotra,S.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Brajesh Shukla,Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
This first appeal from order is directed against the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, VIIth, Bulandshahr on 27.7.2011 on the ground that while even recording a finding to the effect that concerned tortfeasor vehicle had no route permit while being plied and yet the Court in operative portion of the order has doubted the violation of policy.
Per contra, the argument advanced on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is that the necessity of permit under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act is attracted only in the event the total weight of the vehicle exceeds 3,000 kgs, whereas in the present case total laden weight of the vehicle was of 2820 Kilograms. The plea is also taken vide para 23 of the counter affidavit and the said fact has not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit by the insurance company.
In view of relevant provision (supra) therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the argument advanced of behalf of learned counsel for the applicant is misplaced and is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected Another limb of the same argument is raised that no permit was submitted by the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, issue has remained undecided by the Tribunal, which was framed as issue no. 3 with regard to valid permit.
In the opinion of the Court, once the necessity of permit is not required in the event the total wight of laden vehicle is less than 3000 kgs, it hardly matters whether any permit was filed or not.
Yet another argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the insurance company is to the effect that earlier the first information report was lodged in which final report had been submitted and the ground of objection is to the effect that the vehicle which has been held to be tortfeasor vehicle was not at all involved in the case.
From perusal of the point no. 1 as has been discussed by the Tribunal, I do not find that any such ground was at all taken. However, during course of the argument, learned counsel for the respondent has stated before this Court that in the said case subsequently driver was chargesheeted for negligent driving resulting in accidental death of the victim, and therefore, involvement of vehicle cannot otherwise be ruled out.
Having perused the entire judgement, I do not find that any perversity is in respect of the finding on issue no. 1 and 2.
Even otherwise on merits, I do not find the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is sustainable on any count.
The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Sanjeev