UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. GANAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.8972 of 2006 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order dated 22nd April 2006 passed in MVC No.465 of 2003 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khanapur on the ground of liability as well as quantum. The respondents are the claimants, who filed claim petition claiming compensation on the ground that they sustained injury in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 6th May 2002. Claimant, in order to prove the fact that they have sustained injuries in the accident in question and to fix liability against insurance company, has examined the injured as PW1 and Doctor as PW2 and documents have been marked as Exhibits P1 to P9. The respondent therein, i.e. the Insurance Company, examined RW1 the treated doctor in order to rebut the evidence of PW2. No documents have been produced by the respondentappellant herein.

(2.) In this appeal, an application under Order LXI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by producing the copy of the Insurance Policy. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the policy was issued to cover the risk of owner-cum-driver as the vehicle is a private vehicle and the policy issued to the owner was with a condition that the vehicle should be used only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and for the insured for his own business. He contends that the claimants are the passengers who hired the vehicle. Though the vehicle is a private car and was not having any permit to be used as a transport vehicle i.e. taxi; the owner has used the vehicle as a taxi contrary to Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned counsel relies on the complaint as per Exhibit P1, the FIR and the evidence of PW1, who is injured and an inmate of the vehicle in question. In the FIR it is stated to the police that they hired the vehicle in order to go to Goa and in view of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, it met with an accident. PW2, whose crossexamination has been referred to by the learned counsel, has admitted the contents of Exhibit P1 and further has deposed that they have hired the vehicle in order to go to Goa. These materials were placed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal failed to consider in exonerating the liability on the Insurance company. In support of this submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. CHALLA BHARATHAMMA AND OTHERS, 2004 ACJ 2094, wherein it has been held that the Insurance Company is not liable, since there is no valid permit in possession of the driver.

(3.) The learned counsel referred to Section 66 of the Act, which contemplates the criterion necessity of permits. It provides that no owner shall use any vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place with or without carrying any passengers or goods. Since the owner/driver breached the conditions of policy issued, to that extent, liability be fastened on the owner and not on the insurer, is his submission.