Jharkhand High Court
M/S Jain Travels I/C Divya Jain vs Meghan Tati on 7 October, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:30955
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 164 of 2016
M/s Jain Travels I/C Divya Jain, C/o Jhumar Mal Jain, R/o Kutchery Road,
near Gangor Sweets, P.O.-G.P.O.Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Meghan Tati, S/o Late Rupapl Tati
2. Draupati Devi, W/o Sri Meghan Tati, both are R/o Village-Bakhanda,
P.O.-Bakhanda, P.S.-Sahapur Kamal, Dist.-Begusarai at present R/o
Ratu Road Indrapuri, Khasgarha, P.O.-Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist.-
Ranchi
3. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch-
II, Kutchery Road Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi
.... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Kumar Saw, Advocate
Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shreyansh Kumar Basudevam, Advocate
For Insurance Co. : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
23 / Dated : 07.10.2025
1. On the previous date, learned counsel for the appellant had sought for
adjournment for filing the certified copy of the permit and today he has
submitted that he could not obtain the certified copy of the permit.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award
of compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in Compensation
Case No. 139/2011 whereby and whereunder, the liability to pay the
compensation amount has been fixed on the insurer of the vehicle,
however, a right to recovery has been given against the owner of the
vehicle/ present appellant.
3. The facts are not in dispute that on 22.08.2006 at 9:00 am, deceased
Lalu Tanti died in a motor vehicle accident involving a Bus bearing
Registration No. BR 13P 1730. It is also not in dispute that the bus was
being plied by DAV Public School.
4. The instant appeal is preferred mainly on the ground that the vehicle
was a school bus which has no definite route and, therefore, the route
permit is not required. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the
2025:JHHC:30955
High Court of Punjab and Haryana in National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Chet Ram & Ors. (FAO No. 4647/2010) wherein it has been
held that since the school buses do not run on the definite route,
therefore, route permits are not required from the transport authorities.
5. It is submitted that there was a breach of term of insurance policy
which was incumbent on the part of the Insurance Company to have
cancelled the same.
6. It is submitted by Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Insurance Company, that the mandate of law under
Section 66 of the M.V. Act is explicit that the permit is essential for a
commercial transport vehicle. There is no distinction between school
bus and a private bus so far as requirement of permit is concerned. The
authority relied upon by learned counsel on behalf of the appellant has
been discussed in M/S Yadwindra Public School vs Seema and Ors,
2016 SCC OnLine (P&H) 19859, wherein it has held that there was
requirement of permit even for school buses and in absence of it, the
liability is fit to be imposed on the owner of the vehicle for breach of
term of insurance policy. In the said judgment, ratio has been laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Chella Bharathamma {(2004) 8 SCC 517 was considered.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides,
the main point for determination in the present appeal is whether the
owner of the vehicle can escape the liability to pay compensation
amount on the ground that the vehicle in question was a school bus and
it was insured at the relevant time of accident. The question hinges on
the issue whether the permit in the first place is required for plying a
school bus.
8. This Court is of the view that the argument, raised on behalf of the
appellant, is misplaced for the reason that there is a distinction between
a route permit and a permit for plying transport vehicle for commercial
purposes. Even if a vehicle does not require a route permit, still it
cannot be exempted from the requirement of having a permit for plying
it on public road for commercial purposes. The requirement of law
under Section 66 of the M.V. Act is for obtaining a proper permit for
2025:JHHC:30955
plying a commercial vehicle. There is no exemption as such for a
school bus. Once there is an accident caused by a commercial vehicle
and the owner fails to produce the permit as per requirement under
Section 66 of the M.V. Act, the defence under Section 149(2) of the
M.V. Act will apply.
9. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there is no
infirmity in the right to recovery awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Misc. Appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any,
stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
07th October, 2025
AKT/Satendra
