IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 431 of 2008 a/w FAO Nos. 432,433,434 of 2008, 454,490 of 2009 and 545 of 2008. Date of decision: 31.5.2011. FAO No. 431 of 2008. Smt. Vijay Kumari …Appellant. Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Ors. …Respondents. ......................................................................................................... For the appellant. Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For respondent No.1. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For respondents No. 2 to 4. None. ......................................................................................................... FAO No. 432 of 2008. Smt. Vijay Kumari …Appellant. Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Ors. …Respondents. ......................................................................................................... For the appellant . Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate For respondent No.1. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For respondents 2 to 4. Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. ......................................................................................................... FAO No. 433 of 2008. Smt. Vijay Kumari …Appellant. Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Ors. …Respondents. For the appellant . Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate For respondent No.1. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For respondents 2 to 4. Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. ......................................................................................................... FAO No. 434 of 2008. Smt. Vijay Kumari …Appellant. Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Ors. …Respondents. For the appellant . Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate For respondent No.1. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For respondents 2 &3. Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. ......................................................................................................... FAO No. 454 of 2009. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd …Appellant. Versus Amrik Singh & Anr. …Respondents. For the appellant Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. For respondent No.1. Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate For the respondent No.2 Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. : 2 : FAO No. 490 of 2009. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd …Appellant. Versus Amar Chand & Ors. …Respondents. For the appellant . Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate For respondents 1 & 2: Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate. For the respondent No.3 Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate ......................................................................................................... FAO No. 545 of 2008. New India Assurance Company Ltd. …Appellant. Versus Anil Kumar & Ors. …Respondents. For the appellant Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 3: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondent No.4. Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. All the aforesaid appeals are being decided by one common judgment, since common questions of law and fact are involved in the same. 2. The undisputed facts are that Smt. Vijay Kumari (hereinafter referred to as the owner) was owner of two buses being Bus No. HP48-1112 and HP48-1811. Bus No. HP 48-1112 met with an accident on 21st February, 2007 at a place known as Chabdu near Brangal in Chamba District. Claim petitions were filed by the persons insured/legal representatives of the deceased. In these claim petitions an objection was raised by the insurance company that the owner did not have a route permit to ply 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. : 3 : the bus in question on the Chamba Brangal Chamba Bhalei route in which the accident had occurred. The stand of the owner was that she owned two buses. As far as Bus No. HP 48-1112 is concerned, the route permit authorized this bus to be driven on the Chamba Bhanjraru Chamba Sundla Koti route which admittedly does not cover the station where the accident took place. The other bus, i.e. Bus No. HP48-1811 had a route permit for Chamba Brangal Chamba Bhalei which was to cross at the place known as Chabdu. 3. In the first set of appeal filed by the owner that MACT held that the bus did not have a valid route permit and therefore gave a right to the insurance company to recover the awarded amount from the owner. Thereafter this Court dealt with this issue in CWP No. 637 of 2005 Shiv Kumar Kaul Vs. State of HP & Ors. following this decision in the case decided thereafter the Tribunal held that there was a valid route permit and therefore the insurance company was liable to satisfy the award. The second set of appeals by the insurance company is against these award(s). 4. The issue whether the State should give route permits specific to a particular bus, or whether the route permits should be for the fleet of one owner came up for consideration before a Division of this Court in a group of : 4 : matters. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding the aforesaid bunch of cases in CWP No. 637 of 2005 titled as Shiv Kumar Kaul Vs. State of HP & Ors. and another connected matters disposed of these petitions in the following terms:- “............................................................................................... In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the writ petitions are allowed and it is held that as the law stands, the State has no power to direct that route permit shall be vehicle specific and granted for one vehicle only. The past practice of entering the registration numbers of all the vehicles owned by the operator(s) shall be followed so long as necessary amendment is not made in the rules.” 5. It is thus apparent that this Court held that as the law stood on January 2008 the State had no power to direct that route permit shall be vehicle specific and granted for one vehicle only. It was further directed that the State should follow the past practice of entering the registration numbers of all the vehicles owned by the owners till the amendment is not made in the rules. Therefore, by virtue of this judgment the necessary effect would be that the two route permits would be valid for both the buses. The owner has filed appeals in those matters which were decided before this judgment was delivered and the insurance company given the right to recover the amount from the owner. The second set of appeals has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award of the MACT which held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation relying upon the aforesaid decision of this Court. : 5 : 6. In view of the above discussion and in view of the law laid down in CWP No 637 of 2005 it is clear that the objection raised by the insurance company that the owner did not have a valid route permit cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appeals filed by the owner are allowed and the awards of the learned Tribunal are modified to the extent that the insurance company shall pay the amount and shall not be liable to recover the same from the owner. As far as the appeals filed by the insurance company are concerned, the same are dismissed. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. 31st May, 2011. (Krn Guleria)