AMRITPAL AND ANOTHER Vs. MEETU BAI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amritpal and another, driver and owner of truck No.PB-13-M- 1163 (alleged offending vehicle) are in appeal to assail award dtd. 6/7/2015 primarily on the question of insured being guilty of violating the terms and conditions of contract of insurance, on the basis whereof, the insurance company has been given right of recovery after discharging its liability towards the claimants.

(2.) Counsel for the appellants would argue that permit issued by Regional Transport Authority, Patiala dtd. 7/7/2009 was valid upto 6/7/2014. Prior to expiry of validity period, appellant No.2 deposited fee for renewal of permit on 4/7/2014 vide receipt No.9814126296897 Ex.R2/Annexure A2. It is further argued that Neel Kanth Sharma, Junior Assistant from the office of RTA, Patiala was examined. In his cross examination, he has admitted that the Department does not maintain any record in manual form after computerization since 2010 and fee for permit is deposited online. He has further admitted it correct that renewal fee for permit in respect of offending vehicle PB-13M-1163 was deposited on 4/7/2014 vide receipt Ex.R2. It is argued with vehemence that if the concerned authority did not issue the permit immediately on deposit of renewal fee well before expiry of validity of the earlier permit valid upto 6/7/2014, the appellants cannot be condemned for there being no permit on the day of occurrence i.e. 10/8/2014. It is further argued that fresh permit was issued on 13/10/2014 valid upto 12/10/2019, therefore, the insured cannot be blamed for alleged violation of terms and conditions of policy for non-possessing of permit on the day of occurrence i.e. 10/8/2014. It is argued with vehemence that in view of the materials on record particularly the documents produced in the testimony of Neel Kanth Sharma, finding recorded by the Tribunal that either the insured is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of policy or the insurer is entitle to right of recovery cannot be allowed to sustain.

(3.) Counsel representing the insurance company, on the contrary, would urge that perusal of the permit issued w.e.f. 13/10/2014 would reveal that it makes reference to deposit of Rs.2900.00 vide receipt No.A-69715 dtd. 13/10/2014. It is further argued that the registered owner of the vehicle did not appear in the witness box to explain as to why there are two receipts with regard to deposit of Rs.2900.00 as renewal fee i.e. one dtd. 4/7/2014 relied upon by the appellants and the other that finds reference in the renewed permit Ex.R3. Another submission made by counsel is that assuming that a sum of Rs.2900.00 was deposited by Jarnail Singh towards fees of renewal of permit on 4/7/2014, it is not a substitute for permit required for plying a transport vehicle at a public place in compliance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'). In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of this Court Ram Kishan and another VS. M/s HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, FAO No.2298 of 2014, decided on 16/5/2018.