- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11674 MFA No. 102829 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102829 OF 2014 (MV-) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BELLARY R/BY ITS, DEPUTY MANAGER MOTOR THIRD PARTY HUB SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMANTHA @ K.HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR R/O. 2ND WARD KORACHARA STREET, HOSADAROJI VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK NOW RESIDING AT KUDITINI VILLAGE BELLARY TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. ALLAH BAKASH A S/O. ABDUL SALAM AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF TRUCK BEARING REGN. NO. TN-23/AH-7106 R/O. 2/11 SMALL MOSQUE STREET, KASPA, VELLORE, TAMILNADU 3. M.ARUMUGAM S/O. MURUGESAN AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE TRUCK BEARING NO.TN-23/AH-7106 R/O. 15 NO.35, VALAYALKARA STREET SAIDAPET VELLOR, TAMILNADU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3-SERVED; R2-SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.15 17:48:08 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11674 MFA No. 102829 of 2014 THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.08.2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF IIIRD MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BELLARY IN MVC NO.220/2013 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 25.08.2014 passed in MVC No.220/2013 by the learned III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballari. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 11.10.2012, at about 7.00 a.m., the petitioner and one Dodda Basaya were proceeding by walk for taking sticks in front of the water tank, Kudithini-Kampli Road, Hosa Daroji village. At that time, one truck bearing Reg.No.TN-23/AH-7106, came at a high speed, driven by its - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11674 MFA No. 102829 of 2014 driver in a rash and negligent manner, and dash to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner had sustained the grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Accordingly prays to allow the claim petition. 4. A Notices were issued to the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Despite the service of a notice, they remained absent, and were placed ex-parte. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company admitted the issuance of the policy regarding the offending vehicle. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the owner of the vehicle has no permit to ply the said truck on the said route, at the time of the accident. It is contended that the there is a breach of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11674 MFA No. 102829 of 2014 the policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. Conversely, the Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 25.08.2014 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,41,900/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization, and held that the owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11674 MFA No. 102829 of 2014 compensation amount to the petitioner, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. 9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.220/2013, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the truck was plying outside the permit route. He submits that the permit of the offending vehicle is to ply only in the state of Tamil Nadu and not in Karnataka, and the accident occurred in Karnataka. Thus, there is a breach of the policy conditions, and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11674 MFA No. 102829 of 2014 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point, that would arise for my consideration is regarding the liability 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and also that the petitioner sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner has produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P5, which is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle . Regarding Liability: 16. The Insurance Company has taken a specific defense in the statement of objections that the owner of the vehicle has deviated the route. The question that would - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11674 MFA No. 102829 of 2014 arise here is, Whether the deviation of route would fall under Section 150[2][a][i][C] of the Act. To analyze this aspect, it would be beneficial to refer to the definition clause of 'permit' under Section 2[31] of the Act. "Permit" means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act, authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle. A Permit is issued to a transport vehicle. Section 66 of the Act contemplates the necessity for permit. Section 72 of the Act provides for the grant of stage carriage permit whereby, the Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under the Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the conditions which are 24 in numbers in the said section. Section 74 deals with the grant of a contract carriage permit. The conditions attached to the permit under Section 74 of the Act are about 13 in numbers. Section 75 deals with scheme for renting of motor - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11674 MFA No. 102829 of 2014 cabs. Section 76 deals with application for private service vehicle permit. Section 76[3] contemplates that the Regional Transport Authority if it decides to grant the permit may, subject to any rules that may be made under the Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the conditions which are 7 in numbers in the said section. Similarly, Sections 77, 78 and 79 deals with the grant of goods carriage permit. Consequences of violation of permit conditions are contemplated under Section 86 of the Act wherein the permit can be cancelled, and the penalty can be imposed under Section 192-A of the Act. Section 207(1) of the Act contemplates regarding the power to deviate vehicles used without certificate of registration, permit, etc., 17. It is beneficial to refer to these provisions only to ascertain the intention of the legislature in employing the words 'the purpose for which the vehicle may be used'. There are different kinds of contravention to the permit. One of it is relating to the route on which or the area in which the vehicle may be used. The purpose for which the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11674 MFA No. 102829 of 2014 vehicle may be used is distinguishable from the terms and conditions of the permit. Utmost, the route on which or the area in which the vehicle may be used is one of the terms and conditions of the permit. However, it cannot be construed as the purpose for which the vehicle may be used. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering this aspect relating to section 207 of the Act, in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS VS. NANDED-PARBHANI Z.L.B.M.V. OPERATOR SANGH reported in 2000 [2] SCC 69, held as follows: "According to the learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra the expression "purpose for which the vehicle may be used" could be construed to mean that when the vehicle is found to be carrying passengers more than the number prescribed in the permit, the purpose of user is otherwise. We are unable to accede to this contention as in our opinion, the purpose would only refer to a contingency when a vehicle having a permit of a stage carriage is used as a contract carriage or vice versa or where a vehicle having a permit for stage carriage or contract carriage is used as a goods vehicle and vice versa." - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11674 MFA No. 102829 of 2014 18. Admittedly, the vehicle had a valid permit, but it was taken beyond the permit limit. There is some difference between the two aspects. If there is no permit at all, or if a transport vehicle is used for a purpose not allowed by the permit as envisaged in Section 150(2)(a)(i)(c), the Insurance company need not indemnify the liability of the insured for the violation of the policy conditions. But, where a vehicle is taken beyond the limits, it cannot be said that there is violation of policy condition, it is a contravention of the permit condition which is punishable according to Section 192A of the Act. 19. The Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on both, the owner of the offending vehicle, and the Insurance Company, jointly and severally. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11674 MFA No. 102829 of 2014 ii) The judgment and award dated 25.08.2014 passed in MVC No.220/2013 by the learned III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballari, is hereby confirmed. iii) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27