NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. VEENA JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE award dated 10.12.2007 has been challenged by the insurance company for the reason that the offending Truck URM -4975, which dashed the deceased riding on his scooter, did not have permit at the relevant time.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has relied upon Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') which mandates the necessity of permit while using the motor vehicle to carry the passenger or goods. It was further argued that only the statement of advocate of owner was made basis to accept that the Truck was empty and going for repairing. The owner did not take trouble even to file the written statement. It is relevant to note that the driver of the offending truck Sri Satya Pal was examined before the Tribunal and he deposed that at the relevant time, the truck was empty and going for repairing work. I feel that the statement of driver can be accepted in this regard and there was no necessity of the permit, as held by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, supported with the provisions of Section 66(3)(p) of the Act. Even otherwise, if the Truck was not being used for transporting goods and it was simply being plied on the road for any other purpose, then the Court holds that there was no necessity for the permit at all. The very language of Section 66 of the Act contemplates the necessity of permit only when a goods vehicle is used for carrying the goods. The goods transporting vehicle cannot be attributed to be in the use wherefor it is meant, if it is being plied on the road for any other purpose, apart from carrying goods. On the same analogy, if the vehicle meant for transporting passengers is not being plied for that purpose, then it cannot be accepted that such vehicle was being used at a particular time for the purpose it was meant, and in such eventuality, no permit is needed.

(3.) AS regards the quantum of compensation, it is relevant to note that the deceased was a retired army Sepoy running in his late sixties. He was getting pension to the tune of Rs.10,971/ - and even after his death, the Court may take judicial notice that the widow of such person would have been getting at least fifty percent of that pension. To that sum, only 1/3rd of annual income has been deducted by the Tribunal treating the same as personal expenditure of the deceased.