Skip to main content

MACT: Absence Of Permit Is Statutory Breach Of Policy Condition Absolving Insurer

In Amrit Paul Singh vs TATA AIG General Insurance, the Supreme Court considered an appeal from the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appeal was filed by the owner of the truck involved in the accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the truck was being plied without permit, and held that statutory breach of policy conditions had occurred. Therefore, the insurer was not held liable.

Aggrieved, the owner filed appeal before the high court unsuccessfully. In the SLP filed in the Supreme Court, the owner contended that absence of permit was not a fundamental breach which led to the accident. It was also contended that application for permit was filed, and it was during its pendency that the accident had occurred.

Rejecting the contentions, the bench held as follows;
“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 Supreme Court was also in agreement when relying on Challa Bharathamma case, the High Court opined that even assuming that the owner had already applied for grant of the permit before the accident, the same would not entitle the owner to ply the vehicle. It is worthy to note that the learned single Judge distinguished the decisions cited before him and, resultantly, confirmed the award of the tribunal.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Even An Unregistered Partnership Firm Can Maintain ‘Cheque Bounce’ Complaint

In M/s Uttam Traders Ranghri vs. Tule Ram alias Tula Ram, an appeal was filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court solely on the ground that one of the partners of the complainant-firm which is an unregistered partnership concern, had failed to prove that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint and acquitted the respondent. The High Court decided that two questions arise for consideration in this matter :- 1) Whether acquittal by the magistrate solely on the ground that the managing partner of the appellant having failed to establish that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint was correct 2) Whether a partner of an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For the first issue, the High Court referred to M/s Haryana State Co.Op., Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. M/s Jayam Text...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more