If offending vehicle had no valid route permit, owner/insured is liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation : Jammu High Court

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AT JAMMU Through: Mr. Jatinder Singh Adv. MA 534 2014 …. Respondent(s) Gouri Shanker Mohd. Iqbal & ors. Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dhar Adv. for No.3. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN JUDGE This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.06.2014 delivered by the Presiding Officer Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jammu in Claim No.24 2012 whereby the claimant Gouri Shanker has been held entitled to receive compensation for an amount of Rs.3 19 000 along with pendentelite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum except on the amount of loss of future income from the owner payable by insurance company with right to recover the same from the owner insured. The facts as borne out from the record are that a Tipper bearing No.JK11 4837 while being driven rashly and negligently hit the appellant claimant on 25.03.2011 at about 10.30 AM at Yard No.6 Narwal Jammu as a result of which received injuries and his left leg got fractured. Firstly he remained 2 MA 534 2014 admitted in Bee Enn Charitable Hospital Jammu and thereafter he was operated upon in a hospital at Amritsar of Motor Vehicles Act 1988: “81. Duration and renewal of permits. 5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the period thereof such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clauseof section 87 and where a temporary permit has been granted the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded.” 4 MA 534 2014 Admittedly the offending vehicle caused the accident on 25.03.2011 at Yard No.6 Narwal Jammu and the route permit was valid for all J&K roads. The validity of route permit expired on 18.01.2011 whereas it came to be renewed on 16.06.2011 upto 18.01.2012 meaning thereby the route permit came to be renewed for a period of one year upto 18.01.2012 thus the renewal of route permit was having retrospective effect. Further as per Section 81(5) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 where a route permit is renewed after the expiry of period thereof such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry. 10. Further even if it is presumed that what was pleaded by appellant Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal was correct still it cannot avoid the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the injured as the defences available to it under Section 149(2) of the Act are very limited. Non renewal of Route Permit is not the defence available to the Insurance Company to avoid liability to compensate the third party. Further enactment of Motor Vehicles Act is welfare legislation with an objective to give financial aid to the victims of motor vehicular accidents and also to the persons who are deprived of their physical capabilities because of such accidents. This legislation aids such victims or their dependants to lead a respectable life. Thus the interpretation of various sections of Motor Vehicles Act shall be towards the fulfillment of these objectives and not to block the compensation on non sustainable grounds. 11. The case before this Court is not a case where there was no Route Permit at all therefore it cannot be said that the vehicle was being plied without a route 5 MA 534 2014 12. Thus the learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that since at the time of accident the offending vehicle had no valid route permit which came to be renewed on 16.06.2011 as such the owner insured was liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation. In view of the aforesaid discussion the impugned award merits to be modified. Accordingly the impugned award is modified and it is held that besides the awarded amount the appellant shall also be entitled to an amount of Rs.20 000 being the amount incurred on transportation charges as well as the expenses incurred on the attendant. Thus in all the appellant shall be entitled to receive compensation for an amount of Rs.3 39 000 along with pendentelite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum except on the amount of loss of future income from the insurance company. Let the awarded amount be released in favour of appellant after proper verification and identification in terms of the conditions if any as contained in the impugned award. 14. Registry to send down the record of learned Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment. 15. Disposed of along with connected MA(s) if any. .08.2021 Anil Sanhotra) Tashi Rabstan) Judge ANIL SANHOTRA2021.08.10 16:46I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document 

Summary: This was held in the judgment passed by a one bench judge comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE, in the matter Gouri Shanker V. Mohd. Iqbal &amp; ors (MA 534/2014), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed for an appeal that was directed against the judgment and award dated 13.06.2014 delivered by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. The claimant-Gouri Shanker has been held entitled to receive compensation for an amount of Rs.3,19,000/- along with future interest @ 7.5% per annum except on the amount of loss of future income from the owner payable by insurance company with right to recover the same from the owner-insured. The facts as borne out from the record are that a Tipper bearing No.JK11- 4837, while being driven rashly and negligently, hit the appellant-claimant on 25.03.2011 at about 10.30 AM at Yard No.6, Narwal, Jammu, as a result of which received injuries and his left leg got fractured. The petitioner as per the disability certificate issued by the Board of Doctors suffered a permanent disability of 30% which when compared to whole body shall be reduced by 50%. Appellant-Gouri Shanker filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal passed the award Being not satisfied the appellant has filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the award. Since the appellant was operated upon in a hospital at Amritsar and thereafter visited Amritsar on several occasions for follow-up checkup, an attendant must have remained there with the appellant on all these occasions. However, the award shows that the amount on these counts have not been awarded in favour of appellant. the Insurance Company took the plea that the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid route permit. The question that arose for consideration is: whether the owner/insured can be held liable for payment of compensation?