FAO/215/2018 on 9 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

FAO (MVA) No.215 of 2018 Date of Decision : 09.10.2026 Iqbal Magra and another

…… Appellants

Versus

Smt. Ratto and others ……Respondents

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No

For the appellants : Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

(oral)

The present appeal has been preferred by the owner and Driver of the offending vehicle, in the case at hand, against the award dated 08.01.2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba Division, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in M.A.C. Petition No.254 of 2016, titled Smt. Ratto and others vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others.

2. By virtue of the award, an amount of Rs.4,48,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

petition, i.e., 24.11.2016, till the date of deposit, has been fastened on the owner and Driver of the offending vehicle, in the case at hand.

3. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the offending vehicle was registered as a commercial vehicle, as is evident from the copy of the Registration Certificate ( Ext.R2/B). The registration of the vehicle had been done in April, 2016 and the accident had taken place on 29.07.2016. Other than the aforesaid, it is admitted that at the time of the accident, a trolley had been fitted to the Tractor and it was being plied on a highway (public place).

4. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances of the case, based on the pleadings, an objection was raised by the Insurance Company (respondent No. 5) that the vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act and the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

5. In this respect, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed two specific issues, i.e., Issue Nos. 5 and 6, which read as follows: "5. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of Motor Vehicles Act and terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR1

6. Whether the offending vehicle was being plied without valid documents as alleged? OPR1"

6. The aforesaid issues were answered in the affirmative in favour of the Insurance Company (respondent No. 5). The relevant extract of the award in this respect reads as follows:

"An objection has also been taken by respondent No.1 that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the mandatory terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, because it was plied without valid documents. The offending vehicle was registered as a commercial vehicle, which fact is not in dispute. It so also emanates from the copy of registration certificate Ex.R.2/B (also Ex.R1/B), which shows that the offending Tribunal vehicle was registered as a commercial vehicle in April, 2016 and the accident had taken plae on 29.7.2016. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle had no route permit. Admittedly, at the time of occurrence of the accident, a trolley was fitted in the tractor and it was plied on a high way, a public place. Respondent No.2, the owner had used the vehicle for commercial purposes. Hence, in view of the law laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled Parkash Chand Vs. Kamal Jeet and others, FAO No.200 of 2016, decided on 8.9.2017, route permit was required to be. obtained. It was stated in the Insurance Policy that the vehicle shall be driven only in accordance with the permit and no permit was available with the owner. It was laid down in Parkash Chand's case (supra) that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured, where the vehicle was being driven without a route permit in violation of the Insurance Policy. It has also been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and others (2004) 8 SCC 517 that plying of vehicle without a permit is an infraction and insurance company is not liable for the payment of compensation. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation and respondent No.2, being the owner and respondent No.3, being the driver of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.”

7. The question, which arose for consideration in Prakash Chand, referred to by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (judgment of a Coordinate Bench) was, as to whether a Tractor fitted with a trolley, registered as a vehicle for commercial purpose, is required to be plied on a public highway by obtaining a route permit, as envisaged under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act). After considering the appropriate provisions, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that for plying a commercial vehicle on a public highway, obtaining a permit was an absolute imperative. Plying of a vehicle without a route permit would be an infraction of the Insurance Policy. In this respect, reliance placed upon Prakash Chand (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in National Insurance Company vs. Challa Bharathamma, (2004) 8 SCC 517 by the Tribunal, cannot be faulted with.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and legal matrix, I see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chamba Division, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in M.A.C. Petition No.254 of 2016, titled Smt. Ratto and others vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Bipin Chander Negi) October 09, 2026 (KS) Judge