VIVEK SHARMA Vs. MEHARBAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous appeal under Sec. 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dtd. 26/2/2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vidisha in Claim Case No.100/2018 by which the Insurance Company has been exonerated on the ground that the vehicle in question was not having the fitness certificate.

(2.) The counsel for the appellants by relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Vinod and others reported in 2020 (1) MPLJ 142 and in the case of Kvita Balethiya and others vs. Santosh Kumar and another reported in 2020 ACJ 2077, submitted that it has been held that use of transport vehicle in a public place without permit is a fundamental/statutory infraction and fitness certificate for obtaining the permit is the minimum requirement, therefore, if the offending vehicle was not having the fitness certificate on the date of accident, then the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated. It is submitted that in the present case also, the Claims Tribunal should have applied the principle of pay and recover. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of injured and thus the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on a higher side.

(3.) Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the Insurance Company. However, it is fairly conceded that so far as the question of non-availability of fitness certificate is concerned, the said question has already been decided by this Court in the case of Vinod (Supra) and Kvita Balethiya (supra).