[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ayub Khan vs Susheela Khatik on 12 February, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5698
1 MA-2936-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 12th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 2936 of 2017
AYUB KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
SUSHEELA KHATIK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ram Vilas Sharma-Advocate for respondent No.5/Insurance
Company.
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants (owner and driver of the
offending vehicle) challenging the award dated 01.08.2017 passed by the
Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (M.P.) in
Claim Case No. 500005/2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the Claims
Tribunal"), whereby the Claims Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to
pay compensation to the claimants with liberty to recover the same from the
owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
2. The date of the accident and the finding recorded by the Claims
Tribunal regarding negligence are not in dispute.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though it is true
that at the time of the accident the offending vehicle did not possess a valid
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5698
2 MA-2936-2017
fitness certificate and there is no specific term or condition in the insurance
policy requiring the vehicle to have a fitness certificate. It is contended that
the Claims Tribunal erred in treating the absence of fitness certificate as
breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In support of his
submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision in Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Manoj and Others, 2014 (1) ACCD 174 (MP) . It is, therefore,
prayed that the impugned award be modified.
4.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company
supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
Claims Tribunal.
6. It is undisputed that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle
did not possess a valid fitness certificate. It is also not in dispute that the
insurance policy does not expressly mention the requirement of a fitness
certificate.
7. In the case of Pareed Pillai Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,
2019 (1) ACJ 16, held as under :-
13. Fitness of the vehicle to be plied on the road as a 'transport
vehicle' is very important, especially in relation to the lives and
limbs of the persons travelling in the vehicle, the pedestrians,
other vehicles and properties of persons who are also using the
road. It is with this intent, that a specific provision has been
incorporated under the Statute as Section 84, prescribing the
general conditions attached to all permits. Clause (a) of Section 84
reads as follows :
84. General conditions attaching to all permits-
The following shall be conditions of every permit-
(a) that the vehicle to which the permit relates carries valid
certificate of fitness issued under section 56 and is at all times so
maintained as to comply with the requirements of this Act and the
rules made thereunder;
14. It is pertinent to note, that power is conferred upon the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5698
3 MA-2936-2017
Transport Authority who has granted the 'Permit' to cancel the
Permit MACA No. 2030 of 2015 and connected cases or suspend
the same on the grounds specified under Section 86; among which
Clause (a) is in respect of the breach involving any conditions
specified in Section 84 or any condition contained in the Permit.
Section 86 (1) (a) and (c), to the extent, it is relevant here, is
extracted below :
86. Cancellation and suspension of permits-
(1)The Transport Authority which granted a permit may cancel the
permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit-
(a) on the breach of any condition specified in section 84 or of any
condition contained in the permit, or
(b) xxxxx
(c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by
the permit, or
15. As mentioned above, fitness of a vehicle, to be used as a
transport vehicle, is of paramount importance. The necessity to
have 'Fitness Certificate' is prescribed under Section 56 of the Act.
Sub- section (1) of Section 56 clearly stipulates that, a transport
vehicle [subject to the provisions of Section 59 (power to fix the
age limit of motor vehicle) and Section 60 (registration of the
vehicles belonging to the Central Government)] shall not be
deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 39,
unless it carries a 'Certificate of Fitness' as prescribed. By virtue of
Section 84 (a), as mentioned MACA No. 2030 of 2015 and
connected cases already, it is a mandatory requirement of every
Permit, that the vehicle to which the Permit relates, shall carry
valid 'Certificate of Fitness' issued under Section 56 at all time,
absence of which will automatically lead to a situation that the
vehicle will not be deemed as having a Permit [if it is not having a
'Fitness Certificate' on a given date]. Using a motor vehicle in an
unsafe condition in any public place itself is an offence under
Section 190 of the Act. Separate penalty is prescribed under
Section 192 for driving or using the motor vehicle in
contravention of Section 39 of the Act [i.e. without registration];
which at the first instance by fine upto Rs.5000/- [not less than Rs.
2000/-] and for the second or subsequent offences, it may be with
imprisonment, which may extend to one year or fine upto
Rs.10,000/- [not less than Rs.5000/-] or with both; of course,
conferring power upon the Court to impose a lesser punishment,
for reasons to be recorded. Similarly, separate punishment is
provided for using vehicles without 'Permit' as provided under
Section 192A [first offence with fine upto Rs.5000/- which shall
not be less than Rs.2000/- and for any subsequent offence with
imprisonment upto one year [which shall not be less than 3 months
or with fine upto Rs.10.000/- which shall not be less than
Rs.5000/-] or with both; here again conferring power on the Court
to impose lesser punishment, for MACA No. 2030 of 2015 and
connected cases reasons to be recorded. Reference is made to the
above provisions only to illustrate the utmost requirement to have
a valid 'Registration, Permit and Fitness Certificate'.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5698
4 MA-2936-2017
16. Importance of the fitness/road worthiness of a vehicle, right
from the time of registration of the vehicle, is further discernible
from Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 [referred
to as Central Rules]. The said Rule deals with application for
registration of motor vehicles, which, among other things,
stipulates that it shall be accompanied by various documents.
Under sub-rule (1) (g), it is mandatory to produce road worthiness
certificate in Form 22 from the manufacturers [Form 22A from the
body builders]. On completing the formalities/procedures,
'Certificate of Registration' is to be issued in terms of Rule 48 of
the Central Rules in Form 23/23A, as the case may be. The said
Rule contains a proviso, insisting that, when Certificate of
Registration pertains to a transport vehicle, it shall be handed over
to the registered owner only after recording the Certificate of
Fitness in Form 38. Validity of the Certificate of Fitness is only to
the extent as envisaged under Rule 62 of the Central Rules, which
mandates, as per the proviso, that the renewal of a Fitness
Certificate shall be made only after the Inspecting Officer or
authorised Testing Station as referred to in sub Section 1 of
Section 56 MACA No. 2030 of 2015 and connected cases of the
Act has carried out the test specified in the table given therein.
17. The stipulations under the above provisions clearly
substantiate the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness
Certificate to the transport vehicle at all times. The above
prescription converges on the point that Certificate of
Registration, existence of valid Permit and availability of Fitness
Certificate, all throughout, are closely interlinked in the case of a
transport vehicle and one requirement cannot be segregated from
the other. The transport vehicle should be completely fit and road
worthy, to be plied on the road, which otherwise may cause threat
to the lives and limbs of passengers and the general public, apart
from damage to property. Only if the transport vehicle is having
valid Fitness Certificate, would the necessary Permit be issued in
terms of Section 66 of the Act and by virtue of the mandate under
Section 56 of the Act, no transport vehicle without Fitness
Certificate will be deemed as a validly registered vehicle for the
purpose of Section 39 of the Act, which stipulates that nobody
shall drive or cause the motor vehicle to be driven without valid
registration in public place or such other place, as the case may be.
These requirements are quite 'fundamental' in nature; unlike a case
where a transport vehicle carrying more passengers than the
permitted capacity or a goods carriage carrying MACA No. 2030
of 2015 and connected cases excess quantity of goods than the
permitted extent or a case where a transport vehicle was plying
through a deviated route than the one shown in the route permit
which instances could rather be branded as 'technical violations'.
In other words, when a transport vehicle is not having a Fitness
Certificate, it will be deemed as having no Certificate of
Registration and when such vehicle is not having Permit or Fitness
Certificate, nobody can drive such vehicle and no owner can
permit the use of any such vehicle compromising with the lives,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5698
5 MA-2936-2017
limbs, properties of the passengers/general public. Obviously,
since the safety of passengers and general public was of serious
concern and consideration for the law makers, appropriate and
adequate measures were taken by incorporating relevant
provisions in the Statute, also pointing out the circumstances
which would constitute offence; providing adequate penalty. This
being the position, such lapse, if any, can only be regarded as a
fundamental breach and not a technical breach and any
interpretation to the contrary, will only negate the intention of the
law makers.
8. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the law laid down,
this Court is of the considered opinion that absence of a valid fitness
certificate on the time of accident amounts to a fundamental breach
and not a technical breach.
9. The Claims Tribunal has rightly held that non-possession of a
valid fitness certificate amounts to breach of the terms and conditions
of the insurance policy. Consequently, the direction issued to the
Insurance Company to satisfy the award with liberty to recover the
amount from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle is just and
proper.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, no interference is warranted
in the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal.
11. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
Prachi
