UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SHARDA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dt, 24.02.2012, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saojat, District -Pali. While praying for setting aside the award, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle Tempo No. RJ 36 PA 0081 was plying the said route from Peepaliya Kala and Karma was which is outside local limits of Municipality of Pali City, whereas, the route permit of the Tempo insured with the appellant -company was authorized to ply within local limits of Municipality of Pali City, as such, the appellant -company is not liable to pay compensation.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent -claimants, however, while opposing the prayer of the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had gone into detail of the objections of the appellant -company and held that Tempo, at that time, was not carrying any passenger. It was empty and, therefore, there was no violation of the route permit.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the vehicle was insured with the appellant -company. It is also not disputed that the vehicle had a valid permit. The only objection is that it was not plying as per route permit. The onus to prove that the said vehicle was being used for the purpose of carrying passengers on the route in violation of the permit was on the appellant -company. The company could not show any evidence that there were passengers in the vehicle or was carrying any passenger. In fact, finding has been recorded that there was no passenger in the vehicle at that time. As per finding, the vehicle was on a private errand. The route permit authorizing to ply within local limits of Municipality, Pali does not mean that the said vehicle cannot go outside the local limits of the Municipality at all. It cannot be said that the said vehicle cannot go outside local limits either for filling of fuel or its repair or for such other personal reason. The failure of the appellant -company to show that the said vehicle was at that time carrying passengers on the said route in violation of the route permit makes the appellant -company liable.