Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chainaram vs Khuman Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:11331) on 27 February, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:11331]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 199/2021
Chainaram S/o Shivji Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Mangle Ki Beri,
Tehsil Gudamalani, Dis. Barmer
----Appellant
Versus
1. Khuman Singh S/o Bal Singh, Purohiton Ki Basti, Mudho
Ki Dhani, Bandra Tehsil And Dis. Barmer
2. Punamchand S/o Chainaram, Mangle Ki Beri, Tehsil
Gudamalani, Dis. Barmer
3. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Limited, 6th Floor, Leela
Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-
400059
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Leela Dhar Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal with
Ms. Anamika Baghmar
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
27/02/2025
1. The present appeal has been filed by the owner of the
vehicle in question against the judgment and award dated
13.11.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in
Civil Misc. (MACT) Case No.175/2012 whereby while awarding the
compensation in favour of the claimant, the learned Tribunal
exonerated the Insurance Company as the vehicle in question did
not have a valid permit. However, the learned Tribunal passed a
direction to 'Pay and Recover' which is under challenge in the
present appeal.
2. The appeal is reported to be barred by 2562 days.
[2025:RJ-JD:11331] (2 of 4) [CMA-199/2021]
3. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been
filed for condonation of the said delay.
4. Heard the counsels on the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act as well as the appeal.
5. In view of the submissions made in the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay
caused in filing the present appeal is condoned.
6. A bare perusal of the award dated 13.11.2013 reflects that
the objection of the vehicle in question not having a valid permit
was very well raised by the defendant Insurance Company vide
application dated 16.03.2013 (Exhibit NA-1). On the said
application been filed, defendant No.2 i.e. the owner of the vehicle
in question was directed to place on record the permit of the
vehicle in question, if any. However, no permit in pursuance to the
said order was placed on record. Therefore, the learned Tribunal
recorded a finding that the vehicle in question being a 'goods
vehicle' was mandatorily required to have a permit and the same
not been placed on record, was a clear breach of conditions of the
Insurance Policy. Therefore, the learned Tribunal proceeded on to
decide Issue No.3 in favour of the defendant Insurance Company
and exonerated it from the liability but with a direction to pay and
held it entitled to recover the same from the owner without
instituting any separate proceedings.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh Vs.
TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.; (2018) 7 SCC 558
reiterated that where a goods vehicle is being used in a public
space without a valid permit, the insured, i.e. the owner would be
liable to reimburse the compensation amount paid to the
[2025:RJ-JD:11331] (3 of 4) [CMA-199/2021]
claimants by the Insurance Company. Therein, the Hon'ble Apex
Court observed as under:
"23. In the case at hand, it is clearly
demonstrable from the materials brought on
record that the vehicle at the time of the
accident did not have a permit. The Appellants
had taken the stand that the vehicle was not
involved in the accident. That apart, they had not
stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit
or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that
have been carved out Under Section 66 of the
Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded
and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid
of in the course of an argument to seek
absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a
public place without a permit is a fundamental
statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so
in view of the series of exceptions carved out in
Section 66. The said situations cannot be
equated with absence of licence or a fake licence
or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for
that matter, violation of a condition of carrying
more number of passengers. Therefore, the
principles laid down in Swaran Singh (supra)
and Lakhmi Chand (supra) in that regard
would not be applicable to the case at hand. That
apart,the insurer had taken the plea that the
vehicle in question had no permit. It does
notrequire the wisdom of the "Tripitaka", that the
existence of a permit of any nature is amatter of
documentary evidence. Nothing has been
brought on record by the insured toprove that he
had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation,
the onus cannot be caston the insurer.
[2025:RJ-JD:11331] (4 of 4) [CMA-199/2021]
Therefore, the tribunal as well as the High Court
had directed the insurerwas required to pay the
compensation amount to the claimants with
interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall
be entitled to recover the same from the owner
and thedriver. The said directions are in
consonance with the principles stated in Swaran
Singh (supra) and Ors. cases pertaining to pay
and recover principle."
8. In the specific opinion of this Court, the finding as recorded
by the learned Tribunal being totally in consonance with the above
settled position of law and the material available on record, the
same does not deserve any interference and the appeal is hence,
dismissed.
9. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
246-Devanshi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
