$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 267/2019 & CM APPL. 8156-8157/2019 MOHD IRFAN AHMED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Chandra, Mr. W. Ahmed and Mr. Fahad Zia, Advs. versus SHIMLESH & ORS (THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ) .....Respondent Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv. for Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 22.07.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by owner of the offending vehicle challenging the right of recovery which has been granted to the Insurance Company [respondent no.7 herein]. 2. The accident in question occurred on 24th June 2018, as reported by HC Vikas Baliyan, who later testified as PW2. As per his testimony, on the date of the accident, he was on patrolling duty from 06:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. At about 09:30 p.m., when he reached The Aqua Hotel near Shastri Park, he saw ASI Om Pal Singh [‘deceased’] coming from the service road on the side of PS New Usmanpur, when he was hit by a bus bearing registration no. UP-86T-5254, [‘offending vehicle’] which was being driven in “fast speed and rash and negligent manner”. He was injured and fell down at the spot. He further stated “driver of the bus came down as he seen (saw) that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:46:49 injured was police official fled away from the spot along with the bus”. 3. The issue which has been raised by Mr. Sameer Chandra, counsel for appellant/owner, is that the offending vehicle was not being used as a transport vehicle and, therefore, even if the temporary permit had expired a day before the accident, that is on 23rd June 2018, it would not be relevant in light of Section 66(3)(p) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [‘MV Act’]. A similar interpretation has been adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Bijaya C. Tripathy, (2004) 7 SCC 139, as also by the Kerala High Court, in Suresh Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., IV (2016) ACC 528 (DB) (Ker). 4. Section 66(3)(p) of the MV Act reads as under: “(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply— ….. (p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair…” The said provision carves out an exception under Section 66(1) of the MV Act, and provides that the mandatory requirement of a permit under Section 66(1) shall not apply to any transport vehicle, if it is proceeding empty for the purposes of repair. 5. Counsel for appellant/owner, further contends that the repair of the nozzle pump was carried out on 24th June 2018, in respect of which a repair bill has been placed on record by the appellant/owner, Irfan Ahmed [R2W1], and exhibited as Ex.RW1/E. 6. Counsel for appellant/owner, states that there was no objection to the exhibition of said repair bill. However, the MACT, in the impugned order, has taken a view that it was a forged and fabricated bill. 7. The submission, therefore, is that, notwithstanding the fact that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:46:49 bus/offending vehicle was being driven empty and was not being used for the purposes of transport on that day, it had also been taken for repairs. On the issue of whether an empty bus being driven would fall within the purview of a transport vehicle, the decision of the Supreme Court in Bijaya C. Tripathy (supra) requires examination, wherein the Supreme Court has taken a clear position with respect to Section 66 of the MV Act, and has observed as under: “10. The High Court also appears to have misread Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. All that Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides is that the owner of a motor vehicle cannot use the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place without a permit. Section 66, therefore, merely prevents use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle without a permit. It does not prohibit driving of such a vehicle on a public road. The vehicle can be driven on a public road so long as it is not used as a transport vehicle. To take an extreme example, the owner of such a vehicle may use that vehicle for taking his family out for a picnic. Section 66 will not bar such a use. It is thus clear that even in the absence of a permit the vehicle remains a transport vehicle which is capable of being used on a road so long as the vehicle has a valid certificate of fitness and a valid registration certificate. In such cases it has to be presumed that such a vehicle has been “kept for use” irrespective of whether or not it was actually used on the road.” (emphasis added) 8. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has also taken a similar position in Suresh Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (supra), the relevant portion from which is extracted as under: 14. A somewhat similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sethunath's case (2011(1) KLT 222). There, the vehicle had a valid permit as a transport vehicle itself which had expired on the date of the accident. The This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:46:49 question was whether the liability of the insurance company is co-terminus with the period of validity of the permit The car involved in the accident knocked down two pedestrians. Therefore, actually they were third parties. This Court considered the question whether there can be any sustainability of the contentions of the insurance company that the vehicle was used as a transport vehicle/commercial vehicle for carrying any passengers for hire or reward. The provision under Section 66 of the Act and the rules were examined by the Bench. This Court also noticed that the insurance company did not have a case that at the time of the accident, any passengers were being carried for hire or reward. After examining the provisions under Section 66 of the Act, the view of this Court is that the expiry of validity of the permit will only mean that the vehicle cannot be used as a transport vehicle any more unless the permit is renewed. By the expiry of the permit, the operation of the policy to cover the risk of passengers being carried for hire or reward, will also cease. But it was held that the policy will nevertheless cover the risk of third parties, especially if it is not established that the vehicle was being used as a transport vehicle at the time of the accident. We extract paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment hereinbelow: “19. It may be true that S.66 interdicts the owner of a vehicle from using it as a transport vehicle in any public place, whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods except otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the permit. A closer look at the above provisions will show that the statutory thrust is against user of a vehicle as a “transport vehicle” without a permit. It cannot be disputed that insurance policy had been issued to cover the risk of passengers to be carried in the vehicle for hire or reward. Therefore, expiry of validity of the permit will only mean that the vehicle cannot be used as a transport vehicle any more, unless the permit is renewed. Simultaneously operation of the policy to cover the risk of passengers being This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:46:49 carried for hire or reward, will also cease. But in our view the policy will nevertheless cover the risk of third parties, especially if it is not established that the vehicle was being used as a transport vehicle at the time of the accident. The words “whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods” in S.66 are obviously qua the permit and not the policy. 20. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Sub-r.(2) of R.82 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules only postulates that a tourist permit shall be invalid from the date on which the motor vehicle covered by the permit completes 9 years, unless the motor vehicle is replaced. In other words, if the vehicle is replaced the validity period of the permit would continue to be operative. It may be true that the owner would not have been entitled to be indemnified, if the accident had occurred while the vehicle was being used as a transport/commercial vehicle while carrying passengers for hire or reward. In such an eventuality, the company would have been eminently justified in contending for the position that there was violation of the policy conditions.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The cross-examination of R2W1, conducted by the Insurance Company, shows that he was confronted with the suggestion that there were passengers in the bus at the date and time of the accident, which he rebutted. He was also confronted with the suggestion that the repair bill was fabricated, which was also rebutted by him. 10. As regards the testimony of PW2, the eyewitness/HC Vikas Balian, no cross examination was preferred by respondent no.7/Insurance Company. It would have been incumbent upon respondent no.7/Insurance Company to confront the eyewitness on the issue of whether there were passengers in the bus/offending vehicle, when he spotted it at the time of the accident. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:46:49 However, no such opportunity was availed of. 11. Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.7/Insurance Company, points out to the testimony of R3W1, the official from the Insurance Company, who has stated that the temporary permit had expired on 23rd June 2018, and therefore, was not valid at the time of the accident. R3W1 was also cross-examined on this issue. However, the said aspect is not relevant. 12. In this view of the matter, and having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bijaya C. Tripathy (supra), it would have to be held that, on the basis of the evidence on record, there were no passengers in the bus/offending vehicle and, therefore, it was not being plied as a transport vehicle on that day. Additionally, there is a repair receipt on record. However, even if the same is ignored, the former aspect would give cover to appellant/owner of the offending vehicle, under Section 66(3)(p) of the MV Act. 13. Accordingly, defence of respondent no.7/Insurance Company, that the bus/offending vehicle did not have a valid permit on the date of the accident, and therefore, it was entitled to recovery rights, as granted by the MACT, is rejected. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 15. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 16. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JULY 22, 2026/MK/ya This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:46:49