R K COLLEGE Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle involved in accident against the award dated 28. 06. 1994 made by the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Jodhpur in Claim Case No. 214/1991 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 44,621/- to the injured claimant for the loss suffered by him due to the injuries sustained in accident; but has exonerated the insurer of its liability on the ground that the vehicle was being plied on a nationalised route in contravention of the terms of permit.

(2.) ONLY the finding on exoneration of the insurer having been questioned in this appeal, a brief reference to the background facts would suffice. The claimant-respondent No. 1 Ramesh Chand Vyas, while joining his wife Smt. Chandra Kanta as claimant No. 2, sought compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,04,250/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of a mini bus bearing registration No. RJ19 P 0123 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses with the submissions that on 15. 03. 1991 they were travelling with other members of family from Jodhpur to Sivana in a Jonga Jeep bearing registration No. RRQ 7177; that they took halt at a hotel near village Jatiyasani at about 8:00-8:30 p. m. ; that the claimant No. 1 alighted and proceeded to answer the call of nature when the non-applicant No. 1 brought driving rashly the aforesaid mini bus bearing No. RJ19 P 0123 and hit him on the wrong side of the road causing extensive bodily injuries; that the claimant No. 1 remained hospitalised for about 53 days, had to undergo operations for treatment of fractures on his right leg and right arm, his wife was also required to take leave from her job for about 6 months to attend on him; and that he has suffered permanent disablement of the affected limbs and was still under physiotherapy.

(3.) ON the two aspects involved in issue No. 3, the Tribunal held in the first place that the driver of the offending vehicle, non- applicant No. 1 Hanuman Singh, was holding a valid driving licence. ON the second aspect related to the permit of the vehicle in question, the Tribunal referred to the statement of NAW-1 Subhash Chandra Bohra and to the permit Ex. NA/2 and found that as per the terms of permit, the vehicle could not have been plied on a nationalised route or any part thereof; but the accident occurred on Jodhpur-Balotra road that was a nationalised route; and as such it were a violation of the terms of permit. The Tribunal concluded that in such circumstances, the vehicle in question being not covered under valid permit, the insurance company was not liable for compensation. The entire consideration of the Tribunal on this relevant aspect relating to the permit reads as under:- **********