FAO No.139 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.139 of 2006 Date of Decision. 15.09.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, Sector-17, Chandigarh through its Assistant Manager ......Appellant Versus Jaswanti Devi aged 55 years and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the insurance company pleading that it is not liable in view of the fact that the offending vehicle was not shown to have a valid route permit and a fitness certificate. The requirement of a permit as contemplated under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act as a permissible defence for the insurance company shall be with reference to the purpose of the permit only. If the vehicle as a transport vehicle had a particular permit, it is irrelevant that the vehicle strayed away from the route, which was assigned to it. It shall constitute an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act but it shall not avail to the insurer to contend that its own liability cannot be attracted under such a situation. 2. Plying of a vehicle without a fitness certificate is again an FAO No.139 of 2006 -2- issue not available to the insurer to urge to deny liability. The consequences for plying the vehicle without such certificate is wholly different in the scheme of the Act and it cannot be urged as a ground to deny liability. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant refers to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and others JT 2004 (7) SC 519 to say that plying of a vehicle without a valid permit is a defence available to the insurer. The said decision has a bearing only to a case where a vehicle that was run as a transport vehicle by carrying passengers for hire was required to have a permit and if it was being plied without a permit, the insurance company would have a right to contend that it is not liable. This was not the situation in this case. The existence of permit itself is not denied. It is the existence of a particular route permit which is denied. It makes all the difference. 4. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 15, 2010 Pankaj*