MACT - Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction

In Amrit Paul Singh Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer, opposed the claim on the ground that the offending vehicle in question was driven in violation of the terms of the insurance policy and further the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license and, therefore, it was not obliged to indemnify the insured. That apart, a stand was taken that the vehicle did not have the permit on the date of the accident. 

The tribunal noted that the vehicle was purchased in September 2012 and insured on 20.12.2012. It was registered on 26.02.2013. The accident, as stated earlier, occurred on 3 19.02.2013. The tribunal, placing reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, held that the insurer was not liable. 

The order was challenged by the owner stating that he had deposited the necessary fees along with application on 19.02.2013 for issue of route permit and the same was issued on 27.02.2013 and since had already submitted the documents in the transport office for grant of permit along with the requisite fees, the tribunal was in error in holding that the vehicle was being plied without a valid permit.

The High Court on appeal concurring with the Tribunal also held that the owner had not been able to establish that he had submitted the application for issue of permit before the accident. Referring to Section 66 of the Act and placing reliance 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 as the documents clearly show the permit was issued after the accident.

On appeal the Supreme Court noting that though the Motor Vehicle Act under Section 66 allows some exceptions to the necessity for permit, held that the same said exceptions 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. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the tribunal as well as the High Court had directed the insurer was 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 the driver.