SUKHLAL Vs. PARVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dtd. 19/11/2019, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur (hereinafter after referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby a claim petition filed by the respondentclaimants No.1 to 6 was allowed while holding the appellant -owner of the vehicle liable for the claim. The insurance company -respondent No.7 was though held not liable but has been asked to pay the amount of claim, with a stipulation that the insurance company would be entitled to recover the amount from the present appellant-owner of the vehicle.

(2.) The present appellant was held liable for the claim amount, as the learned Tribunal found that the appellant-owner of the vehicle - Tempo bearing registration No.RJ-12-TA-1420 was not having a fitness certificate, which amounted to violation of policy conditions.

(3.) Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant argued that if the Transport authority wanted to cancel petitioner's fitness certificate it was required to pass a speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since, neither any proceedings were initiated nor the permit issued qua the Tempo in question was cancelled, Mr. Jain argued, it cannot be said that the Tempo was being plied without a valid permit and there was a violation of conditions of the policy.