SANJEEV GAUTAM Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal assails the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the District Forum, Bhopal whereby the claim for damage to the vehicle has been turned down by the Forum. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mr. Ajay Mishra, the vehicle Tata Indica was purchased on 8.11.2006 and the insurance policy was also obtained on the same date valid from 8.11.2006 to 7.11.2007. The vehicle was a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. Under Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the limitations apply, but the learned Counsel submits that notwithstanding that the appellant had not obtained permit, he was entitled to compensation for the damage done to his vehicle on the grounds hereafter referred to.

(2.) THE appellant, had applied for permit on 11.12.2006. On 3.1.2007 the Authorities signed the permit made effective from 4.1.2007 to 3.1.2012. Unfortunately before the permit was obtained, on 3.1.2007 a motor -cyclist collided with the vehicle and caused substantial damage and without stopping to see w hat has happened, he fled away. The Surveyor of the company assessed the damage in the sum of Rs. 8,558. But the Insurance Company repudiated the claim as permit was not valid on 3.1.2007.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel contends that the vehicle was parked in front of the house of the claimant and not in any public place and it could not be said that the vehicle was being plied without a permit. Learned Counsel has invited attention to Section 66 (1) and (3) which read as follows: