JUDGMENT : RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. This is owner’s appeal seeking quashment of the award dated 04.03.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 60/2014 whereby the learned Tribunal has fastened the liability upon Non-Applicant No.1 and 2 driver and owner of the vehicle. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.1,22,00,000/- claimed by the claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein) by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) on account of death of the deceased – Ranu Raj Walter @ Sonu occurred in the motor vehicular accident on 04.12.2012, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,86,968/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claim application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held that the accident occurred on 04.12.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. CG-0-J-8045 (in short, ‘the offending vehicle’) by its driver – Prem Singh Chandra, respondent No.5 herein, Ranu Raj Walter @ Sonu, who was aged about 31 years and was working in the H.D.F.C. Bank, has died on account of grievous injuries sustained by him; the insurance company held not liable for payment of compensation as it could establish violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation holding the appellant/owner (non-applicant No.2) along with respondent No.5/driver (non-applicant No.1) liable for payment of compensation. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 04.03.2016, the appellant/owner has preferred this appeal seeking exoneration from liability. 5. Shri Jai Prakash Yadu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/owner would submit that the finding recorded by the Tribunal fixing the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant and exonerating the insurance company/respondent No.6 is contrary to law. He would further submit that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.6/insurance company and there was no breach of any policy conditions by the appellant/owner. Therefore, the insurance company be held liable to pay the compensation. 6. He would further submit that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.6/insurance company and there was no breach of any policy conditions by the appellant/owner. Therefore, the insurance company be held liable to pay the compensation. 6. Per contra, Shri Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for respondent No.6/insurance company, while opposing the submission made by the appellant/owner, would submit that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle, being a goods vehicle, was being plied on public road without valid fitness certificate and the appellant / owner could not produce valid fitness certificate. He would further submit that since the appellant/owner has failed to produce the fitness certificate on the date of accident, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held the offending vehicle being driven in contravention of insurance policy and thus, exonerated the insurance company from its liability. He would also submit that absence of a valid fitness certificate for a goods transport vehicle is a fundamental breach of policy condition. In support of his contention, he placed his reliance upon Amrit Paul Singh and Another vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others , (2018) 7 SCC 558 and also on a decision by the Kerala High Court rendered in the matter of Ramankutty and another v. Pareed Pillai and another , 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 3542. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely. 8. To appreciate the arguments advanced by the parties, first of all I shall focus on the statement of N.A.W.1 - Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, appellant herein. He admitted in his cross-examination, in paragraph 3 that he has produced the copy of fitness certificate, marked as Ex.D.4, which was issued on 06.12.2012 by the District Transport Office, Korba. Further admitted that he has deposited a challan on 28.11.2012 along with application for obtaining the fitness certificate. He further admitted that Office of R.T.O. called him for testing of the offending vehicle on 04.12.2012 and on account of ‘No entry” in the day-light, he took the vehicle at 10:00 pm and in that event the alleged accident occurred. On the contrary, this witness further admitted in cross- examination, in paragraph 5 that he did not deposit any challan or e-challan for obtaining the fitness certificate on 06.12.2012. 9. On the contrary, this witness further admitted in cross- examination, in paragraph 5 that he did not deposit any challan or e-challan for obtaining the fitness certificate on 06.12.2012. 9. Perusal of statement of N.A.W.1 Awadhesh Kumar Yadav would reveal that on the date of accident, he did not have a valid fitness certificate. It also appears from his statement that he obtained the fitness certificate issued on 06.12.2012 whereas the alleged accident occurred on 04.12.2012, which is prior to the issuance of fitness certificate. Thus, it is clear that on the date accident, the appellant/owner does not have a valid fitness certificate as per Section 56 of the Act of 1988. Necessity of fitness certificate, issued by the competent authority is envisaged under Section 56 of the Act of 1988, which reads as under:- “ 56 . Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. — (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorised testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder: Provided that where the prescribed authority or the authorised testing station refuses is issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal. (2) The “authorised testing station” referred to in sub-section (1) means a vehicle service station or public or private garage which the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of the operator of such station or garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel therein, may specify in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations or garages. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a certificate of fitness shall remain effective for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government having regard to the objects of this Act. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a certificate of fitness shall remain effective for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government having regard to the objects of this Act. (4) The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder; and on such cancellation the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness has been obtained: Provided that no such cancellation shall be made by the prescribed authority unless such prescribed authority holds such technical qualification as may be prescribed or where the prescribed authority does not hold such technical qualification on the basis of the report of an officer having such qualifications. (5) A certificate of fitness issued under this Act shall, while it remains effective, be valid throughout India”. 10. It is settled law that driving of a vehicle without valid permit and fitness certificate would be considered a violation of the terms of the insurance policy. In Amrit Paul Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held that use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental infraction. 11. This Court in MAC No. 1289 of 2014, Adesh Kumar and another vs. Smt. Satarupa Bai Yadav and others and connected cases decided on 19.11.2020, has considered the issue with regard to breach of policy conditions for not having valid fitness certificate, taking note of ruling of five Judges' Bench of Kerala High Court in case of Pareed Pillai and another (supra) wherein it has been held that absence of fitness certificate for a Transport vehicle to be a fundamental breach of policy conditions. Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 are relevant for the purpose, is reproduced hereunder: “ 16. As mentioned above, fitness of a vehicle, to be used as a transport vehicle, is of paramount importance. The necessity to have 'Fitness Certificate' is prescribed under Section 56 of the Act. Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 are relevant for the purpose, is reproduced hereunder: “ 16. As mentioned above, fitness of a vehicle, to be used as a transport vehicle, is of paramount importance. The necessity to have 'Fitness Certificate' is prescribed under Section 56 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 56 clearly stipulates that, a transport vehicle [subject to the provisions of Section 59 (power to fix the age limit of motor vehicle) and Section 60 (registration of the vehicles belonging to the Central Government)] shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 39. unless it carries a 'Certificate of Fitness' as prescribed. By virtue of Section 84(a), as mentioned already, it is a mandatory requirement of every Permit, that the vehicle to which the Permit relates, shall carry valid 'Certificate of Fitness' issued under Section 56 at all time, absence of which will automatically lead to a situation that the vehicle will not be deemed as having a Permit [if it is not having a 'Fitness Certificate' on a given date]. Using a motor vehicle in an unsafe condition in any public place itself is an offence under Section 190 of the Act. Separate penalty is prescribed under Section 192 for driving or using the motor vehicle in contravention of Section 39 of the Act [i.e. without registration]; which at the first instance by fine upto Rs. 5000/- [not less than Rs. 2000/-] and for the second or subsequent offences, it may be with imprisonment, which may extend to one year or fine upto Rs. 10,000/- [not less than Rs. 5000/-] or with both; of course, conferring power upon the Court to impose a lesser punishment, for reasons to be recorded. Similarly, separate punishment is provided for using vehicles without 'Permit' as provided under Section 192A [first offence with fine upto Rs. 5000/- which shall not be less than Rs. 2000/- and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment upto one year (which shall not be less than 3 months or with fine upto Rs. 10,000/- which shall not be less than Rs. 5000/-1 or with both; here again conferring power on the Court to impose lesser punishment, for reasons to be recorded. Reference is made to the above provisions only to illustrate the utmost requirement to have a valid 'Registration, Permit and Fitness Certificate'. 17. 10,000/- which shall not be less than Rs. 5000/-1 or with both; here again conferring power on the Court to impose lesser punishment, for reasons to be recorded. Reference is made to the above provisions only to illustrate the utmost requirement to have a valid 'Registration, Permit and Fitness Certificate'. 17. Importance of the fitness/road worthiness of a vehicle, right from the time of registration of the vehicle, is further discernible from Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (referred to as Central Rules). The said Rule deals with application for registration of motor vehicles, which among other things, stipulates that it shall be accompanied by various documents. Under sub-rule (1) (g), it is mandatory to produce road worthiness certificate in Form 22 from the manufacturers (Form 22A from the body builders). On completing the formalities/procedures, 'Certificate of Registration' is to be issued in terms of Rule 48 of the Central Rules in Form 23/23A, as the case may be. The said Rule contains a proviso, insisting that, when Certificate of Registration pertains to a transport vehicle, it shall be handed over to the registered owner only after recording the Certificate of Fitness in Form 38. Validity of the Certificate of Fitness is only to the extent as envisaged under Rule 62 of the Central Rules, which mandates, as per the proviso that the renewal of a Fitness Certificate shall be made only after the Inspecting Officer or authorised Testing Station as referred to in sub Section 1 of Section 56 of the Act has carried out the test specified in the table given therein.” 18. The stipulations under the above provisions clearly substantiate the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicle at all times. The above prescription converges on the point that Certificate of Registration, existence of valid Permit and availability of Fitness Certificate, all throughout, are closely Interlinked In the case of a transport vehicle and one requirement cannot be segregated from the other. The transport vehicle should be completely fit and road worthy, to be plied on the road, which otherwise may cause threat to the lives and limbs of passengers and the general public, apart from damage to property. The transport vehicle should be completely fit and road worthy, to be plied on the road, which otherwise may cause threat to the lives and limbs of passengers and the general public, apart from damage to property. Only If the transport vehicle is having valid Fitness Certificate, would the necessary Permit be issued In terms of Section 66 of the Act and by virtue of the mandate under Section 56 of the Act, no transport vehicle without Fitness Certificate will be deemed as a validly registered vehicle for the purpose of Section 39 of the Act, which stipulates registration in public place or such other place, as the case may be. These requirements are quite 'fundamental' in nature; unlike a case where a transport vehicle carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity or a goods carriage carrying excess quantity of goods than the permitted extent or a case where a transport vehicle was plying through a deviated route than the one shown in the route permit which instances could rather be branded as 'technical violations'. In other words, when a transport vehicle is not having a Fitness Certificate, it will be deemed as having no Certificate of Registration and when such vehicle is not having Permit or Fitness Certificate, nobody can drive such vehicle and no owner can permit the use of any such vehicle compromising with the lives. iimbs, properties of the passengers/general public. Obviously, since the safety of passengers and general public was of serious concern and consideration for the law makers, appropriate and adequate measures were taken by incorporating relevant provisions in the Statute, also pointing out the circumstances which would constitute offence; providing adequate penalty. This being the position, such lapse, if any, can only be regarded as a fundamental breach and not a technical breach and any interpretation to the contrary, will only negate the intention of the law makers.” 12. When the present matter is examined in the light of aforesaid matter, I do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/owner that there is no breach of policy conditions at the time of accident. The said submission of learned counsel for the appellant/owner is liable to be and is hereby rejected for the reason that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was plying on the public road without a valid fitness certificate. The said submission of learned counsel for the appellant/owner is liable to be and is hereby rejected for the reason that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was plying on the public road without a valid fitness certificate. In view thereof, the finding of the Tribunal that since there was breach of policy condition and the insurer also succeeded in proving the said fact, is a finding based on evidence and material available on record, which does not call for any interference. 13. In the result, the appeal of the appellant/owner is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.