1 2025:CGHC:33341 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 572 of 2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Satna, Near Paijat Hotel, Reva Road, District - Satna (M.P.). --- Appellant versus 1 - Hari Prasad Yadav S/o Dalsaya Yadav, Aged About 38 Years 2 - Parvati Yadav W/o Hari Prasad Yadav, Aged About 36 Years 3 - Shivmani D/o Hari Prasad Yadav, Aged About 17 Years Minor, 4 - Roopmani D/o Hari Prasad Yadav, Aged About 15 Years Minor, 5 - Anmol S/o Hari Prasad, Aged About 13 Years Minor, No.3 to 5 are minors, through Their Father Hari Prasad Yadav S/o Dalasaya Yadav ( Respondent No. 1), All are R/o Village Bhueshwarpur ( Narmada Para), Police Station And Tehsil - Ramanuj Nagar, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Kalaka Prasad Kushwaha S/o Bhaiyalal Kushwaha, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Bhuneshwarpur ( Narmada Para), Police Station And Tehsil - Ramanuj Nagar, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 7 - Ashok Sahu S/o Dinanath Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sumerpur, Police Station - Ramanuj Nagar, Present R/o Baarkapara, Tehsil And District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1& 5 : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya on behalf of Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.6 & 7 : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.06 13:15:33 +0530 2 16/07/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 30.10.2019, passed in Claim Case No.83 of 2018, whereby the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) has awarded compensation of Rs.9,77,200/- to the claimants in death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application was filed by the applicants/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the death of Awadh Yadav who died in road accident. It was pleaded that on 21/05/2018, Avadh Yadav was travelling in a pickup vehicle bearing registration number CG-29-A- 3510 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle) and was going towards Balaghat. During journey, the non-applicant, driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and collided with a roadside tree. As a result of the severe impact, the front portion of the vehicle was completely crushed due to which Avadh Yadav suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was 19 years of able bodied person, was working as cleaner and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 jointly filed their reply denying the averments made in the claim application. Occurrence of accident from the offending vehicle was denied. It was pleaded that claim application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. Non-applicant No.3 filed reply to the application and denied the allegation made 3 therein. It was pleaded that in the alleged accident, apart from the deceased, one Aditya Kumar also died. Both the deceased were travelling in the said vehicle as a passenger. At the time accident, non-applicant No.1 Kalka Prasad Kushwaha did not have a valid and effective license to drive a transport vehicle and there is breach of conditions of insurance policy. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,77,200/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.1 and 3 to satisfy the amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that this appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the insurance policy does not cover the risk of Khalasi/labour and further that the offending vehicle was being driven without there being any valid and effective permit in breach of policy conditions. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 & 7 (owner and driver) would submit that as per the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that it has not been proved by the clinching evidence as to how many persons were travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident and the insurance policy issued by the appellant/insurance company, is commercial vehicle package policy and the sitting capacity of the vehicle is mentioned as two including driver. He submits that in the comprehensive policy, risk of occupant is also covered. He further contended that according to the registration certificate, unladen weight of the vehicle is mentioned as 2620 KG, which is less than 3,000 Kg, 4 therefore, by virtue of provisions under Section 66 (3) (I) of the Act, 1988, permit for plying the goods vehicle of the weight 2620 is not required. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 supports the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 9. To appreciate the second ground raised by learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company with regard to permit is concerned, the learned counsel for non-applicant No.1 and 2/respondent No.6 & 7 has not made any submission that permit was submitted before the Claims Tribunal or it is forming part of the record. In such a situation, it is to be accepted that for any reason, respondent No.6 & 7 could not able to produce the copy of permit either before the police or before the learned Claims Tribunal, however learned counsel for respondents No.6 & 7 raised arguments that there was no necessity of permit for plying the vehicle owned by non-applicant No.2/respondent No.7. He referred to the provisions under Section 66 (3) (i) in support of his contention. For ready reference, the aforementioned provisions is extracted below, which is reads thus :- “(i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms;” 10. From bare perusal of the provision under 66 (3) of the Act, 1988, the provision under Sub-Section (1) of Section 66 mandated for requirement of permit for a transport vehicle in a public place, is not 5 applicable where goods vehicle with gross vehicle weight exceed 3000 kg. 11. As per the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.6 & 7, driver and owner of offending vehicle, the unladen weight of the vehicle Bolero Pickup- Bolero Maxi Truck was 2620 Kg. Learned Claims Tribunal took note of the particulars of the vehicle as available in record and recorded in para 15 that laden weight of the vehicle is 2620 and unladen weight is 2620. In the definition, the gross vehicle weight is defined under Section 2 (15) of the Act, 1988, which reads as under :- “2 (15) gross vehicle weight” means in respect of any vehicle the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered by the registering authority as permissible for that vehicle.” 12. From bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it is clearly appearing that for the purpose of ascertaining gross weight of any vehicle, the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered by the registering authority for that vehicle is to be considered. 13. In view of the provisions of the gross vehicle weight, unladen and laden weight of the vehicle is to be considered to ascertain the gross vehicle weight and according to the vehicle particulars as available in the record, the gross vehicle weight of the vehicle comes to 5240 Kg, which is more than 3000 kg. 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case where the gross vehicle weight of the offending vehicle is more than 3000 kg. as discussed above, the benefit under Section 66 (3) (i) will not be available to respondents No.6 & 7. Therefore, the submission raised by the learned counsel for 6 the respondent No.6 & 7 is not acceptable and accordingly it is repelled. 15. For the foregoing discussions in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective permit to ply it on public road. Absence of permit is breach of policy conditions, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company in the facts of the case. 16. Considering the aforementioned facts of the case, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that there was no breach of policy condition is not sustainable and accordingly it is set-aside and it is held that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions without having any valid and effective permit. The appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability to indemnify the insured. The liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the owner of offending vehicle i.e. non-applicant No.2/respondent No.7. 17. However, considering the fact that the claimants are poor person and appellant/Insurance Company though issued the insurance policy is exonerated from its liability only for want of permit and further taking note of the decision in case of Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issuance of a direction to Insurance Company to pay and recover in case of breach of conditions of the insurance policy for want of valid permit, appellant/Insurance Company is directed to first 7 satisfy the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. It is made clear that the Insurance Company can recover the amount of compensation so paid as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, (2004) 13 SCC 224. Other conditions of the award shall remain intact. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram