Smt. Kiran Singh Vs. Sarju Verma and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/517977
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnMay-11-2009
Judge M.Y. Eqbal and; Jaya Roy, JJ.
Reported inAIR2009Jhar134
AppellantSmt. Kiran Singh
RespondentSarju Verma and ors.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - for better appreciation, section 66 of the motor vehicles act is quoted herein below:1. we have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and with their consent this appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage.2. the appellant, who is owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 29th march, 2008 passed by motor accident claims tribunal, giridih in claim case no. 18 of 2006 whereby the tribunal directed the appellant-owner to pay the compensation amount and exonerated the respondent- insurance company from its liability.3. the facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:the deceased, rajesh verma, aged about 21 years was dashed by a truck bearing registration no. br-06f/9385 while he was going in a bicycle on the unfateful date of accident i.e. on 9.04.2006. the claimant filed claim application, for the grant of compensation, against the owner of the vehicle and against the insurer of the truck. the owner of the vehicle filed written statement stating, inter alia, that the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent-insurance company and in the event any compensation is awarded, the same shall be payable by the insurance company. the insurance company on the other hand filed written statement and took the usual defence that the owner shall produce the driving licence, road permit etc of the offending vehicle without which the insurance company shall have no liability. the tribunal framed several issues. one of the issues which was under challenge is issue no. 5 i.e. 'whether the owner of the truck possessed all the documents of the truck i.e. insurance policy, r.c. book, road permit, driving licence etc.' while deciding this issue the tribunal found that the road permit (ext. b) was granted to ply the vehicle from muzaffarpur to tata and back via koderma, hazaribag, ramgarh and ranchi either directly or with shortest route. the said accident took place at pachambha about four k.m. away form giridih and 120 k.m. away from koderma. the tribunal held that the accident took place at a place outside the route mentioned in the road permit which exonerated the insurance company form its liability for payment of compensation.4. from perusal of the judgment, it is evident that the appellant-owner of the vehicle took a specific stand that due to road blockage at koderma the police directed to go to tata through giridih. the tribunal disbelieved the evidence in absence of any material evidence contrary to that.5. the short question that falls for consideration is as to whether merely because the owner diverted the route of the vehicle, for the reason mentioned above, the insurance company will be exonerated from its liability for payment of compensation.6. section 66 of the motor vehicles act deals with the provisions with regard to control of transport vehicle. section 66 of the m.v. act put restriction upon the owner of the vehicle to use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place without a permit duly granted by the appropriate authority. for better appreciation, section 66 of the motor vehicles act is quoted herein below: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 authorizing 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, authorize 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, authorize 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, authorize the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.(2) the holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for the drawing of any trailer or semi-trailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:1(provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailor)(3) the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply:(a) to any transport vehicle owned by the central government or a state government and used for government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise;(b) to any transport vehicle owned by a local authority or by a person acting under contract with a local authority and used solely for road cleansing, road watering or conservancy purposes;(c) to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes;(d) to any transport vehicle used solely for the conveyance of corpses and the mourners accompanying the corpses;(e) to any transport vehicle used for towing a disabled vehicle or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety;(f) to any transport vehicle used for any other public purpose as may be prescribed by the state government in this behalf;(g) to any transport vehicle used by a person who manufactures or deals in motor vehicles or builds bodies for attachment to chassis, solely for such purposes and in accordance with such conditions as the central government may, by notification in the official gazette, specify in this behalf;2{***}(i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms;(j) subject to such conditions as the central government may, by notification in the official gazette, specify, to any transport vehicle purchased in one state and proceeding to a place, situated in that state or in any other state, without carrying any passenger or goods;(k) to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle;3{***}(m) to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road, or unforeseen circumstances, is required to be diverted through any other route, whether within or outside the state, with a view to enabling it to reach its destination:(n) to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the central or state government may, by order, specify;(o) to any transport vehicle which is subject to a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement and which owing to the default of the owner has been taken possession of by or on behalf of the person with whom the owner has entered into such agreement, to enable such motor vehicle to reach its destination; or(p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair.(4) subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), sub-section (1) shall, if the state government by rule made under section 96 so prescribes, apply to any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than nine persons excluding the driver.from perusal of section 66 of the m.v. act, it is manifestly clear that sub-section (3) exempt the statutory obligations mentioned in sub-section (1) and (2) of the section 66 of the act. sub-section (3) provides that the necessity of a road permit will not be required to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road, or unforeseen circumstances, is required to be diverted through any other route whether within or outside the state, with a view to enabling to reach its destination.in the instant case, admittedly the road permit was issued in respect of the offending vehicle for the state of bihar and state of jharkhand. the routes provided in the permit falls both in the state of bihar and state of jharkhand. the owner of the vehicle categorically deposed that because of the obstruction and traffic the route of the truck was diverted by the police. no evidence was led to contradict the evidence adduced by the owner of the vehicle. in our considered opinion, therefore, the tribunal has committed error of law in holding that merely because of alleged violation of condition of permit the insurance company shall be exonerated from its liability for payment of compensation.the impugned finding, therefore, recorded by the tribunal cannot be sustained in law. for the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the finding recorded by the tribunal is set aside. it is held that the insurance company has liability to pay the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal.
Judgment:

1. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and with their consent this appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage.

2. The appellant, who is owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 29th March, 2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih in Claim Case No. 18 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal directed the appellant-owner to pay the compensation amount and exonerated the respondent- Insurance Company from its liability.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:

The deceased, Rajesh Verma, aged about 21 years was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. BR-06F/9385 while he was going in a bicycle on the unfateful date of accident i.e. on 9.04.2006. The claimant filed claim application, for the grant of compensation, against the owner of the vehicle and against the insurer of the truck. The owner of the vehicle filed written statement stating, inter alia, that the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent-Insurance Company and in the event any compensation is awarded, the same shall be payable by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company on the other hand filed written statement and took the usual defence that the owner shall produce the driving licence, road permit etc of the offending vehicle without which the Insurance Company shall have no liability. The Tribunal framed several issues. One of the issues which was under challenge is issue No. 5 i.e. 'Whether the owner of the truck possessed all the documents of the truck i.e. Insurance policy, R.C. Book, Road Permit, driving licence etc.' While deciding this issue the Tribunal found that the Road Permit (Ext. B) was granted to ply the vehicle from Muzaffarpur to Tata and back via Koderma, Hazaribag, Ramgarh and Ranchi either directly or with shortest route. The said accident took place at Pachambha about four K.M. away form Giridih and 120 K.M. away from Koderma. The Tribunal held that the accident took place at a place outside the route mentioned in the Road Permit which exonerated the Insurance Company form its liability for payment of compensation.

4. From perusal of the judgment, it is evident that the appellant-owner of the vehicle took a specific stand that due to road blockage at Koderma the police directed to go to Tata through Giridih. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence in absence of any material evidence contrary to that.

5. The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether merely because the owner diverted the route of the vehicle, for the reason mentioned above, the Insurance Company will be exonerated from its liability for payment of compensation.

6. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the provisions with regard to control of transport vehicle. Section 66 of the M.V. Act put restriction upon the owner of the vehicle to use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place without a permit duly granted by the appropriate authority. For better appreciation, Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act is quoted herein below:

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 authorizing 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, authorize 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, authorize 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, authorize the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.

(2) The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for the drawing of any trailer or semi-trailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:

1(Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailor)

(3) The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall not apply:

(a) to any transport vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise;

(b) to any transport vehicle owned by a local authority or by a person acting under contract with a local authority and used solely for road cleansing, road watering or conservancy purposes;

(c) to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes;

(d) to any transport vehicle used solely for the conveyance of corpses and the mourners accompanying the corpses;

(e) to any transport vehicle used for towing a disabled vehicle or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety;

(f) to any transport vehicle used for any other public purpose as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf;

(g) to any transport vehicle used by a person who manufactures or deals in motor vehicles or builds bodies for attachment to chassis, solely for such purposes and in accordance with such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;

2{***}

(i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms;

(j) Subject to such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify, to any transport vehicle purchased in one State and proceeding to a place, situated in that State or in any other State, without carrying any passenger or goods;

(k) to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under Section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle;

3{***}

(m) to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road, or unforeseen circumstances, is required to be diverted through any other route, whether within or outside the State, with a view to enabling it to reach its destination:

(n) to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the Central or State Government may, by order, specify;

(o) to any transport vehicle which is subject to a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement and which owing to the default of the owner has been taken possession of by or on behalf of the person with whom the owner has entered into such agreement, to enable such motor vehicle to reach its destination; or

(p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair.

(4) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3), Sub-section (1) shall, if the State Government by rule made under Section 96 so prescribes, apply to any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than nine persons excluding the driver.

From perusal of Section 66 of the M.V. Act, it is manifestly clear that Sub-section (3) exempt the statutory obligations mentioned in Sub-section (1) and (2) of the Section 66 of the Act. Sub-section (3) provides that the necessity of a road permit will not be required to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road, or unforeseen circumstances, is required to be diverted through any other route whether within or outside the State, with a view to enabling to reach its destination.

In the instant case, admittedly the road permit was issued in respect of the offending vehicle for the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand. The routes provided in the permit falls both in the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand. The owner of the vehicle categorically deposed that because of the obstruction and traffic the route of the truck was diverted by the police. No evidence was led to contradict the evidence adduced by the owner of the vehicle. In our considered opinion, therefore, the Tribunal has committed error of law in holding that merely because of alleged violation of condition of permit the Insurance Company shall be exonerated from its liability for payment of compensation.

The impugned finding, therefore, recorded by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the finding recorded by the Tribunal is set aside. It is held that the Insurance Company has liability to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.