YADWINDRA PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. SEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-respondent No.2 (owner) has preferred this appeal against the award dated 9.8.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby the insurance company was given right to recover the compensation from the appellant.

(2.) THE Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9000/- in Claim Petition No.167 of 25.9.2006 (Vivek Kumar v. Keshar Singh and others) and Rs.30817/- in Claim petition No. 136 of 25.9.2006 (Seema v. Keshar Singh and others).

(3.) ARGUMENTS heard. No doubt, the onus to prove the issue with regard to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was upon the Insurance Company and it had to shift the onus by showing that a school bus also required the route permit. The offending bus is owned by M/s Yadwindra Public School and it was meant for bringing the school children from their houses and drop them back after school hours in the area of Chandigarh as well as Mohali. The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to prove that the bus which was operating under due registration certificate for plying the same for the purpose of delivering the children at their home places was required to have a route permit. No such notification has been passed on record to disclose if this private bus meant for private business needed route permit. The necessity to issue route permits arose to regulate the State and inter State transport vehicles so as to avoid the hotch-potch in plying the buses by the competitor companies. Any way, it was for the insurance company to prove that a school bus required a route permit. Similar observations were made by the Division Bench of this Court in case National Insurance Company Limited v. Kamlesh Kaur and others, 2006(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 634 : 2006 (3) The Punjab Law Reporter 83, which reads as under :-