LACHHMAN SINGH vs KAVITA DEVI & ORS(THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 07th February, 2024
Judgment pronounced on: 27th February, 2024
+ MAC.APP. 921/2018
LACHHMAN SINGH ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Utkarsh Mathur, Advocate.
versus
KAVITA DEVI & ORS(THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO
LTD. ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Mr. Amit
Gaur and Ms. Sweta Sinha,
Advocates for R-4/OIC.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
1. The contest in the present appeal is between the
appellant/registered owner of the offending vehicle and respondent
No.4/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which got the
offending vehicle insured for third party risks. The service of notice
on the instant appeal to the claimants i.e., respondents No. 1 to 3 has
been dispensed with.
2. The appellant is assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award
dated 02.04.2018 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi1, whereby the
claim for compensation filed by the claimants under Section 140 read
with section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19882, was allowed and a
1 MACT
2 The Act
total compensation in the sum of Rs. 19,58,005/- with interest @ 9%
p.a. has been awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition,
which is 02.02.2017, till its realization.
3. The grievance of the appellant/registered owner is that the
offending vehicle i.e., TATA 407 bearing Registration No. DL 1LW
4294, had a valid permit to ply in Greater Noida, but learned Tribunal
has given the rights to respondent No.4/Insurance Company to recover
the amount of compensation that is paid to the claimants/respondents
No. 1 to 3.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this
appeal, CM APPL.No. 42719/2018 was moved on behalf of the
appellant for production of additional evidence with respect to the
permit requirement, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated
12.10.2018.
5. Pursuant thereto, the appellant examined Sh. Rajesh Singh, S/o
Sh. Maharaj Narain Singh, posted as Assistant Regional Transport
Officer (Enforcement, Ghaziabad, ARTO) who deposed about the
road tax receipt of Rs.50/-, which was deposited for vehicle No. DL-IE-
W-4294 vide receipt no. UP00160600275958 on 28.08.2016 up to the
same day i.e., 28.08.2016. The appellant further examined Sh. Piyush
Srivastava, Technical Operator, NIC, Yojana Bhawan, Lucknow as
AW-2, since National Informatics Centre (NIC) maintains the
database of the generation of road tax in State of Uttar Pradesh.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION:
6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of
the record, the long and short of the submissions advanced at the Bar
hinges on the purport and legal sanctity of a receipt for fee/road tax of
Rs.50, deposited towards the offending vehicle bearing registration
No. DL-1LW-4294 on 28.08.2016 (Mark A) and then marked as
Ex.AW-2/1.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the accident in question had
occurred on 28.08.2016, which led to the unfortunate death of the
motor-cyclist Munish Kumar and the claimants are his widow wife,
one minor child and his mother. It is also proven during the course of
trial before the learned Tribunal that the appellant, being the registered
owner of the offending vehicle, possessed a valid permit for plying the
offending transport vehicle in Delhi. On the aspect of fixation of the
liability upon the appellant/registered owner, the learned Tribunal
made the following observations:-
27. The next question is which respondent is liable to pay the
compensation to the claimant.
28. The defence of the insurance company is that the offending
vehicle bearing No. DL-1LW-4294 was being plied without a valid
permit at the time of accident, which is a violation of policy and
therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
29. Counsel for insurance company examined witness from
Transport Department, Rajpura Road, Under Hill Road, Delhi who
stated that permit of the vehicle bearing No.DL-1LW-4294 was
issued from their authority for Delhi State only and proved his
report as EX.R2W2/1. Perusal of record shows that the permit of
the offending vehicle was issued for Delhi State only whereas the
accident had taken place at Sector 163, Greater Noida. Therefore,
the compensation will be payable at the first instance by the
insurance company liberty to recover the same from the driver cum
owner of the vehicle in question.
30. The insurance company would be entitled to recover the
amount from driver cum owner without filing any fresh
proceedings for determination of the liability, with interest @9%
from the date of deposition in terms of this award, till actual
realization. Notice of deposit shall be given by the insurance
company to the claimants as well as to the counsel for claimant.
31. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India,
Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in
account of MACT FUND PARKING. A/c No. 35195787436. IPS
Code SBINQ014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation
to the Nazir along with calculation of interest and to the Counsel
for the claimant. Insurance company shall also furnish TDS
certificate, if any to the claimant.
8. In order to understand whether the aforesaid observations are
correct based on facts and law, let us have a look at the scanned copy
of the tax receipt (Ex.AW-2/1)
9. A bare perusal of the aforesaid receipt would show that it is
titled as e-receipt for Tax Payment” under the banner of the Transport
Department, Uttar Pradesh. It does not mention anything about the
permit type providing not applicable” and the payment was made on
28.08.2016 at 7.26 am in the morning. Evidently, the
appellant/registered owner was having the permit to ply the offending
vehicle in Delhi only as per Ex.R2W2/1 and the accident occurred on
28.08.2016 at 12.45 p.m. It is pertinent to mention here that the
offending vehicle was admittedly a goods carriage” within the
meaning of Section 2(14)3 of the MV Act and Section 2(31)4 defines a
permit, which mandates that it is issued by the State or Regional
Transport Authority or by a prescribed Authority for using a motor
vehicle as a transport vehicle. Chapter V of the Act then has elaborate
provisions for regulating, controlling and plying of transport vehicles.
Section 66 of the Act prohibits any owner of a motor vehicle from
using or permitting the vehicle to be used as a transport vehicle at any
public place, whether or not the goods are actually being carried in the
same vehicle without a permit. Section 67 of the Act then empowers
the State Government to control the road transport and Section 68 of
the Act provides for constitution of Transport Authorities. Further,
Section 69 of the Act is a general provision for entertaining and
issuing the permits by the Regional Transport Authorities. It would be
3 goods carriage means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage
of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods;
4 permit means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority
prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising the use of a motor vehicle as a transport
vehicle.
expedient to reproduce Section 77 of the Act, which provides for
information that needs to be supplied in an application for goods
carriage permit. The section reads as under:-
77. Application for goods carriage permit. – An application for a
permit to use a motor vehicle for the carriage of goods for hire or
reward or for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade
or business carried on by the applicant (in this Chapter referred to
as a goods carriage permit) shall, as far as may be, contain the
following particulars, namely:
(a) the area or the route or routes to which the application
relates;
(b) the type and capacity of the vehicle;
(c) the nature of the goods it is proposed to carry;
(d) the arrangements intended to be made for the housing,
maintenance and repair of the vehicle and for the storage
and safe custody of the goods;
(e) such particulars as the Regional Transport Authority may
require with respect to any business as a carrier of goods for
hire or reward carried on by the applicant at any time before
the making of the application, and of the rates charged by
the applicant;
(f) particulars of any agreement, or arrangement, affecting in
any material respect the provision within the region of the
Regional Transport Authority of facilities for the transport
of goods for hire or reward, entered into by the applicant
with any other person by whom such facilities are provided,
whether within or without the region;
(g) any other particulars which may be prescribed.
10. Section 80 of the Act then provides for the procedure in
applying for and granting permits. The long and short of the aforesaid
discussion is that the appellant/registered owner has not complied with
the aforesaid provisions. He has not been issued any permit by the
State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority,
Greater Noida and evidently, he has been carrying a State permit”,
which authorizes the use of the goods vehicle in Delhi only and it is
not a national permit.
11. In so far as the receipt Ex.AW-2/1 is concerned, it is not in the
nature of a permit enabling the offending goods vehicle to enter its
goods vehicle and ply the same in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is in
the nature of a toll tax or tax on the vehicle so as to allow the entry of
the vehicles into the State of Uttar Pradesh by virtue of the Uttar
Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 19975. Section 4 is the charging
Section that empowers the State Government to charge tax to regulate
the entry of vehicles into the State. The State Government is further
empowered to frame rules under Section 28 of the Act, pursuant to
which Rule 9 of the UPMVT Rules, 1998 then provides for the
method of payment of tax and Rule 12 provides for issuance of
token/receipt for payment of tax, which is what AW-2/1 is all about.
The power to levy and collect such tax is by virtue of Section 4 of the
aforesaid Act, and therefore, the plea that the appellant/registered
owner had a permit to ply the offending vehicle in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, is not sustainable in law.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that there is
no legal infirmity, perversity or incorrect approach adopted by learned
Tribunal in granting the recovery rights to the respondent
No.4/insurance company on payment of compensation to the
claimants.
5 UPMVT Act
13. All the interim orders shall stand vacated. The amount of
compensation be released to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3, if
not already released with interest, as the case may be.
14. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
FEBRUARY 27, 2024
sp