IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1982 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision:15.07.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Sita Rani and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.1983 of 2008 (O&M) New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Balwinder Kumar and others ...Respondents III. FAO No.1984 of 2008 (O&M) New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Pargan Singh and others ...Respondents IV. FAO No.1985 of 2008 (O&M) New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Amrik Singh and others ...Respondents FAO No.1982 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - V. FAO No.1986 of 2008 (O&M) New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Paramjit Kaur and others ...Respondents VI. FAO No.1987 of 2008 (O&M) New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Harjinder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 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. These six cases address the same issue of a vehicle being driven as a goods carriage without a permit. Under the scheme of Motor Vehicles Act, a permit is required to be taken under Section 66 for use of a vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place. Whether or not such a vehicle is actually carrying passengers or goods it is still a transport FAO No.1982 of 2008(O&M) - 3 - vehicle, permit shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of the MV Act. Section 149(2) permits a defence of use of a vehicle for which there is no permit. Admittedly on the date when the accident took place on 07.12.2004, there was no permit and it was taken subsequently as a goods carriage on 23.02.2005. It has been so brought out in evidence before the Tribunal but still the liability was cast on the insurer on the ground that the permit had been issued. The question that must have been raised was whether at the time of accident whether there was a valid permit. 2. This has been also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Challa Bharathamma and others-2005(1) PLR 102. In such a case, the liability to satisfy the award still exists as against the claimant but the insurer shall have a right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle in the manner provided referred to in Kamla's case. 3. All the appeals are allowed to this extent only. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.07.2010 sanjeev