F.A.O.NO. 4792 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 4792 of 2009 Date of decision:29th July, 2010 Subhash and another .......Appellants Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 7. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 8. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is filed by the appellant on the ground that the permit was found to be inadequate for plying in Haryana when goods carriage permit had been issued only for plying it to Rajasthan. In my view it will be no defence for an Insurance Company to plead that there was no valid permit for plying it in Haryana. The consequence of such plying will have other repercussions but the insurer shall stay confined to the defences F.A.O.NO. 4792 of 2009 2 which are permissible under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehilces Act. If only the purpose of permit is violated, the Insurance Company can seek for exclusion, otherwise, for any accident resultant to the use of motor vehicle if there was a valid insurance cover the insurance company shall become liable. 2. The award of the Tribunal in making the driver of the vehicle liable is set aside and the insurer shall become liable for the award. The first respondent shall become liable for the compensation. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 29th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik