LAWS(MPH)-2003-9-18

BALVIR SINGH Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR

Decided On September 02, 2003
BALVIR SINGH Appellant
V/S
MAHENDRA KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded in all Rs. 36,734.05 with interest at the rate of 10 per cent in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 against the appellants exonerating insurance company, respondent No. 4. Ground taken by the learned Tribunal has been that the motor bus in question was insured as a contract carriage for tours while the same was being used as regular stage carriage and, thus, permit conditions were contravened. He has relied upon Ashok Kumar Agrawal v. Om Prakash, 2000 ACJ 445 (MP), in which case though a jeep registered and insured as a private car was being used as a taxi car and the insurance company was exonerated from the liability.

(2.) The respondent insurance company has relied upon section 149 (2) (a) (i) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as follows:

(3.) The advocate for the appellants has relied upon B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam, 2000 ACJ 1585 (HP) and Radhey Shyam Agarwal v. Gayatri Devi, 1998 ACJ 1177 (MP). However, these are the cases in which overloading of the vehicle was not held to be a fundamental breach of the permit conditions. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Uma Devi, 2000 ACJ 1451 (MP), was a case in which truck was used for carrying passengers. The goods vehicles were allowed to carry passengers according to the rules. The presence of owner when the passengers had mounted the vehicle or permitted them to travel could not be proved and no breach of permit conditions by the owner of vehicle was held proved. Such is certainly not the case here. Actually, in the present case permit conditions are not proved. Thus, it cannot be said that there has been any breach of permit condition. In these facts, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandamma, 2001 ACJ 1351 (Karnataka), the judgment of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court did help the appellants to this extent only that the insurance company has to prove the defences available to it.