HANS RAJ CHAUDHARY Vs. NANHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal by the owner is against a direction excluding the liability of the insurance company on the ground that the vehicle was seen being driven outside the route permit. This issue of whether such a violation of permit could constitute exoneration of liability under section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been dealt with in several decisions of this court and the counsel presents before me the view taken by this court in a recent judgment in Future General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surjo Devi, F.A.O. No. 4474 of 2012; decided on 11.9.2012 [reported in 2013 ACJ 2282 (P&H)]. The law is too well settled to make a deviation and I would hold that exoneration of liability given was impermissible.

(2.) COUNSEL appearing on behalf of the insurance company still insist that sections 66 and 69 of the Motor Vehicles Act set out the various terms of permit and one of the terms is that the vehicle could traverse only within the area allowed in the permit. The language used in section 149 that sets out the permissible defences employs the expression of user of a vehicle "for a purpose not allowed by the permit". The purpose of the permit is not the same thing as condition in the permit. The legislature has employed a language restricting it only to violation of purpose of permit. The Motor Vehicles Act, being a beneficial legislation, the issue of liability should be interpreted to the benefit of claimant and to the extent to which the owner obtains indemnity, it makes possible the prospect of recovery so much easier.