PARKASH CHAND Vs. KAMAL JEET & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the tractor fitted with trolley, so registered as vehicle for commercial purpose, is required to be plied on public highway by obtaining route permit as envisaged under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or not. Also, as to whether notwithstanding the vehicle registered as a non-transport (commercial purpose) the liability could have been fastened upon the insurer in infraction to the terms of policy.

(2.) In the instant case, certain facts are not in dispute. Tractor bearing registration No.HP-23-B-2839 is owned by appellant Parkash Chand. It is registered as a commercial vehicle. On 24th January, 2009, Pawan Kumar while driving the tractor on way to a place known as Lethwin, hit claimant Kamal Jeet resulting into serious injuries being inflicted on his body.

(3.) In a claim petition filed by Kamal Jeet, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in terms of impugned award dated 15th March, 2012, passed in M.A.C. No.11 of 2009, titled as Kamal Jeet vs. Pawan Kumar & others, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,62,400/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7½% per annum. Since the driver was not holding an effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, as also the vehicle was not having a valid route permit, insurer was not held liable to pay the amount of compensation.