# United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Radheshayam & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 539
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-31
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 34 of 2016
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-v-radheshayam-ors-48791
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 2(28), 2(30), 2(31), 2(35),
2(47),
66,
103,
103(1)(A)
,
149,
149(2)(B) & 158- Insurance Act, 1938 -
Section - 64(Vb) - Insurers' Appeal -
challenging the award - Accident &
Insurance
Policy
is
not
disputed
-
insurance
company
disputed
their
liability - by raising a moot question that,
whether the insurers are obliged to pay
the
compensation
in
terms
of
the
insurance policy, for the reason that no
route permit has been authorized the
owner
or
the
corporation
operating
offending bus to ply the same on
specified route? - held, corporation do
not require a permit for every vehicle
that
they
operate
with
its
number
mentioned on the permit, they can detail
any vehicle on any route of theirs - the
presumption, therefore, arises clearly is
that the offending vehicle was being
operated on a route for which the
corporation held a permit - no force
whatsoever in the contention of the
appellant-insurance company - both the
appeal fail and are dismissed.
 (Para - 15, 22, 23)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

7 All. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Radheyshayam & Ors.
539
----------
(2022)07ILR A539
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 34 of 2016

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Radheshayam & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anchal Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amit Mishra, Sri Ved Prakash Yadav

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 2(28), 2(30), 2(31), 2(35),
2(47),
66,
103,
103(1)(A)
,
149,
149(2)(B) & 158- Insurance Act, 1938 -
Section - 64(Vb) - Insurers' Appeal -
challenging the award - Accident &
Insurance
Policy
is
not
disputed
-
insurance
company
disputed
their
liability - by raising a moot question that,
whether the insurers are obliged to pay
the
compensation
in
terms
of
the
insurance policy, for the reason that no
route permit has been authorized the
owner
or
the
corporation
operating
offending bus to ply the same on
specified route? - held, corporation do
not require a permit for every vehicle
that
they
operate
with
its
number
mentioned on the permit, they can detail
any vehicle on any route of theirs - the
presumption, therefore, arises clearly is
that the offending vehicle was being
operated on a route for which the
corporation held a permit - no force
whatsoever in the contention of the
appellant-insurance company - both the
appeal fail and are dismissed.
 (Para - 15, 22, 23)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kripa Ram
& ors., F.A.F.O. No. 194 of 2011, decided on
17.08.2017

2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Barabanki Vs
Smt. Mithlesh & ors., 2017 (4) ADJ 111

3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko. Vs Smt.
Daya Devi & ors., 2017 (4) ADJ 778 (LB)

4. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko. Vs Smt.
Saroj & ors., 2021 (6) ADJ 346 (LB)

5. U.P.S.R.T.C. through Regional Manager, 6
Sapru Marg, Lucknow Vs The Oriental Insurance
Ltd. through Regional Manager, Regional Office,
Balmiki
Marg,
Lalbagh,
Lucknow,
dated
25.08.2010

6. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp. Vs
Kulsum & ors., (2011) 8 SCC 142

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This judgment will dispose of
FAFO No.34 of 2016 and FAFO No.33 of
2016, both of which relate to the same
motor accident and give rise to identical
questions of facts and law. Both the appeals
have, accordingly, been heard together.
FAFO No.34 of 2016 shall be treated as the
leading case.

2. In the leading appeal, the Insurance
Company has challenged the judgment and
award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge,
Court No.2, Sultanpur dated 13.10.2015, in
MACP No.36 of 2014. By the award
impugned, the Tribunal has held the
claimant-respondents
entitled
to
a
compensation in the sum of Rs.3,54,000/-
along with simple interest at the rate of 7%
per annum from the date of institution of
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the claim petition until realization. The
liability to pay the compensation has been
fastened upon the United India Insurance
Company Limited, who are the insurers of
the offending vehicle. The Insurance
Company have, therefore, appealed the
impugned award primarily seeking to
unshackle themselves of the liability to
indemnify the owner under the insurance
policy.

3. In the leading appeal, the deceased
is Suresh Kumar @ Lallu, who died in the
fatal accident. Compensation for his death
in the motor accident is the subject matter
of
action.
The
claimants
are
his
dependents.

4. In the connected appeal, the
deceased is Smt. Dhanpatti Devi, mother
of Suresh Kumar @ Lallu, who also met a
fate the same as her son, Suresh Kumar in
the same road accident. The claimants in
this appeal are the dependents of the late
Dhanpatti Devi wife of Radheyshyam. The
Insurance Company, in this appeal too,
say that they ought not to be saddled with
the liability to indemnify in terms of the
insurance policy.

5. In both the appeals, there were
some other issues about the quantum of
compensation also raised in the grounds,
but at the hearing, the learned Counsel for
the appellant-Insurance Company, Mr.
Anchal
Mishra
has
confined
his
submissions
to
the
liability
of
the
Insurance Company to satisfy the award.

6. The question on which the learned
Counsel for the Insurance Company has
addressed the Court is : Whether in view
of the provisions of Section 103(1-A) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short,
''the Act') [as amended vide Uttar Pradesh
Act 5 of 1993, sec. 2 (w.r.e.f. 16-1-1993)],
the absence of a route permit authorizing a
particular bus to ply on a specified route
would discharge the insurer of his liability
on a policy issued in favour of the owner,
if the bus, placed at the disposal and under
the
control
of
a
State
Transport
Undertaking on contract, plies on a route
without such permit?

7. The facts giving rise to the leading
appeal are:

On 22.10.2013 at about 11:40
a.m.,
Suresh
Kumar
@
Lallu
was
proceeding on a bicycle along with his
mother, Smt. Dhanpatti Devi on the
Varanasi-Lucknow
State
Highway,
returning home after darshan at the Devi
Mari Mai Dhaam. As the mother and son
reached a place near the BDDV Mahila
Maha Vidyalaya, Madanpur Paniar, a
Volvo Bus, bearing Registration No. UP32-CZ-0403, approached from the Jaunpur
side. It was driven negligently and at a
high speed. The bus hit the bicycle from
the rear side. The accident resulted in
Suresh Kumar @ Lallu's death on the spot.
The
claimant-respondents,
who
are
dependents of Suresh Kumar @ Lallu,
instituted the claim petition giving rise to
this appeal, demanding a compensation in
the sum of Rs.35,82,000/-. The claimants
proceeded
against
the
owner
M/s.
Logistics Private Limited under care of
Santosh Kumar Jha, resident of Opposite
Ambedkar
Bus
Stand,
Alambagh,
Lucknow. In addition, the driver of the
bus, Vinay Kumar Sharma was also
arrayed as a party.

8. The insurers of the vehicle, United
India Insurance Company Limited through
the Manager, Regional Office United
Indian
Insurance
Company
Limited,
7 All. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Radheyshayam & Ors.
541
Second Floor, Kapoorthala Bagh Complex,
Aliganj, Lucknow were also arrayed as a
party.

9. The driver of the offending vehicle,
who was opposite party no.1 to the claim
petition, filed a separate written statement
denying the accident. He, however, said
that the vehicle was insured with the United
India Insurance Company Limited. He was
driving the vehicle under a valid and
effective driving licence. The bus was
working on contract under the control of
the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation (for short, ''the Corporation').
The Corporation ought to have been made a
party. To like effect is the separate written
statement, paper No. 13 ि filed on behalf of
the owner.

10. The Insurance Company filed their
own written statement, paper No. 10ि. They
denied most of the claimants' case for want of
knowledge. However, in their special pleas, it
was stated that the claimants had not
presented the necessary documents to hold
the Insurance Company liable, such as the
FIR, the charge-sheet, the site-plan, the
postmortem report, the registration certificate,
the road tax payment papers, the route permit
and the insurance certificate.

11. According to the appellantInsurance Company, the claim was barred by
Section 149(2)(b) of the Act read with
Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938.
The Insurance Company went to the extent of
denying having insured the offending bus. It
was also pleaded that the claim petition was
barred by Section 158 of the Act.

12. Upon the pleadings of parties, the
following issues were framed (translated
into English from Hindi):

(1) Whether on 22.10.2013 at
about 11:40 a.m. at the B.D.D.V. Mahila
Maha Vidyalaya located within the limits
of Village Madanpur Paniar, P.S. Lambhua,
District Sultanpur, when the deceased
Suresh Kumar @ Lallu along with his
mother, Dhanpatti Devi, was cycling his
way back after Darshan, Bus bearing
Registration
No.
UP-32CZ-0403
proceeding from the Jaunpur side, driven
negligently and at a high speed by its
driver, who was intoxicated, hit the bicycle
from the rear side, leading to Suresh Kumar
@ Lallu's death on the spot and that of his
mother, Dhanpatti Devi on 22.10.2013 at
the District Hospital, Sultanpur?

(2) Whether the offending vehicle
in question No. UP-32CZ-0403 had all
valid papers, such as registration, insurance
etc., that were effective, if yes, its effect?

(3) Whether the driver of the
offending vehicle in question No. UP32CZ-0403 had an effective and valid
driving licence, if yes, its effect?

(4) Whether the petition is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties?

(5) Whether the claimants are
entitled to any compensation, if yes, from
whom and how much?

13. The claimants examined PW-1,
Radheyshyam and PW-2, Ramesh Kumar
in support of their case and by way of
documentary evidence, produced through a
list of documents a photostat copy of the
FIR, postmortem report, inquest report,
registration certificate, fitness certificate,
driving licence, insurance certificate. In
addition, through another list, paper No.
16ग, a copy of the FIR, a copy of the charge
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sheet, a copy of the site-plan, a copy of the
postmortem report were filed. No oral
evidence was led by any of the opposite
parties to the claim petition, including the
appellant-Insurance Company. The owner
and the driver, however, filed documentary
evidence, being the offending vehicle's
registration certificate, fitness certificate,
the driver Vinay Kumar's driving licence,
the insurance certificate, the document
regarding payment of tax, a copy of the
contract with the State Road Transport
Corporation and a copy of deed (of
agreement) with the Corporation.

14. Heard Mr. Anchal Mishra, learned
Counsel
for
the
appellant-Insurance
Company in support of this appeal and Mr.
Ved Prakash Yadav, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the claimantrespondents. No one appeared on behalf of
respondent no.7, the owner.

15. In this appeal, the moot question
involved is whether the appellant-Insurance
Company are obliged to pay the awarded
compensation in terms of the insurance
policy, for the reason that no route permit
has been produced, authorizing the owner
or the Corporation operating the offending
vehicle to ply the particular vehicle on the
specified route. It is submitted by Mr.
Anchal Mishra, learned Counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company that unless
the particular vehicle, which is a private
vehicle insured by the owner, has a valid
route permit to operate on the route, where
the
accident
occurred,
the
Insurance
Company would not be liable to indemnify.
In support of his contention, the learned
Counsel
for
the
appellant-Insurance
Company has placed reliance on the
decision of a Division Bench of this Court
in F.A.F.O. No.937 of 2009, U.P.S.R.T.C.
through Regional Manager, 6 Sapru
Marg,
Lucknow
v.
The
Oriental
Insurance
Ltd.
through
Regional
Manager,
Regional
Office,
Balmiki
Marg, Lalbagh, Lucknow, decided on
25.08.2010. The said case is related to a
Corporation's Bus, about which it was
contended that it was not proved by
production of a valid route permit that the
Bus had a permit to ply on the route where
the accident occurred. On that ground, the
Insurance Company had denied its liability
to indemnify the Corporation. Relying on
the provisions of Section 66 of the Act, it
was held that the requirement of route
permit to ply on a particular route was
necessary, whether the owner of the
transport vehicle was an individual or the
State
Transport
Corporation.
In
U.P.S.R.T.C.
v.
Oriental
Insurance
Company Ltd. (supra), it was held:

"Further,
"
Motor
Vehicle",
"permit", "Public Service Vehicle" and
Transport Vehicle are defined under
Section 2 sub-section (28) (31) (35) and 47)
of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988:-

"(28)
"Motor
Vehicle"
or
"Vehicle"
means
any
mechanically
propelled vehicle adapted for use upon road
whether the power of propulsion is
transmitted thereto from an external and
internal source and includes a chassis to
which a body has not been attached and a
trailer; but does not include a vehicle
running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a
special type adapted for use only in a
factory or in any other enclosed premises or
a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted
with engine capacity of not exceeding[
twenty-five cubic centimeters];

(31) "permit" means a permit
issued by a State or Regional Transport
Authority or an authority prescribed in this
7 All. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Radheyshayam & Ors.
543
behalf under this Act authorising the use of
a motor vehicle as transport vehicle;

(35) "public service vehicle" means
any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used
for the carriage of passengers for hire or
reward , and includes a maxicab, a motorcab,
contract carriage , and stage carriage;

(47) "transport vehicle" means a
public service vehicle, a goods carriage , an
educational institution bus or a private service
vehicle;"

Chapter V of the Act deals with
control of transport vehicles and in the said
chapter section 66 provides as under:-

"66. Necessity for permits. (1) No
owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit
the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in
any public place whether or not such vehicle is
actually carrying any passengers or goods save
in accordance with the conditions of a permit
granted or countersigned by a Regional or
State Transport Authority or any prescribed
authority authorising him in use of the vehicle
in that place in the manner in which the
vehicle is being used."

Moreover in the said chapter
Sections 70, 71 and 72 provides the procedure
for application for stage carriage permit ,
procedure of Regional Transport Authority in
considering application for stage carriage
permit and grant of stage carriage permit
respectively.

In view of the said provision as find
place in Chapter V of the Act, legal position
which emerges out that the vehicle which
either owned by private individuals or by
Corporation or by any authority can operate on
a route in order to carry the passengers only
when it holds a valid permit to use the said
vehicle as a transport vehicle in public place
subject to conditions as mentioned in sub
section (3) of Section 66 of the Act."

Second submission as made by the
learned counsel for the appellant that at the
time of accident the bus was covered with
valid documents i.e. permit, registration ,
insurance and even if it was not covered by the
valid permit as per the practice and procedure
adopted by the Corporation that vehicles are
sent on the route on the basis of the permit
issued to another vehicle as such the appellant
is not liable to pay the compensation but the
same is payable by insurance company is
factually incorrect and wrong submission. In
this regard issue no. 3 was framed by the
Tribunal and while deciding the said issue
finding of fact has been given by the Tribunal
that at the time of accident, bus was covered
by valid insurance policy but the same was
operated without valid permit, so the insurance
company was not liable to pay any
compensation. Said findings given by the
Tribunal are perfectly valid and in accordance
with law as provided under section 66 of the
Act, as stated above which specifically
provides that transport vehicle can only
operate on the route with a valid permit and in
the present case , it is not disputed by the
learned counsel for the appellant that bus in
question at the time of accident was not
covered by valid permit issued as per the
provisions as provided under Sections 70,71,
and 72 of the Act.

Further even otherwise while
deciding the issue no. 3 , the Tribunal has
also given a categorical finding that the
Corporation/ appellant could not claim the
benefit of the provisions of Section 103 of
the Act because the mandatory provisions
and the directions as provided under
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 101 and 102 of the Act has not
been complied by the Corporation."

16. This Court may notice the
principle that the owner of a commercial
vehicle can place it through a contract at
the disposal of the State Transport
Corporation, who would then be regarded
as its owner under Section 2(30) of the Act,
entitled to operate the bus on any route
under a permit issued to the Corporation,
irrespective of the fact whether the
particular vehicle had a permit for that
route. The Corporation are entitled, by
virtue of Section 103(1-A) of the Act [as
amended vide Uttar Pradesh Act 5 of 1993,
sec. 2 (w.r.e.f. 16-1-1993)], to ply one
vehicle or the other owned by the State
Transport Undertaking or a vehicle that is
placed at their disposal by its owner under
an arrangement entered into between such
owner and the Corporation for the use of
the said vehicle by the latter, on any route
for which the Corporation holds a permit.
The insurance policy would enure to the
benefit of the person, who is lawfully
plying the vehicle, which would include the
Corporation as the term owner has been
given an expanded meaning under Section
2(30) of the Act. It is not the law that each
time a vehicle is placed at the disposal of
another person, or for that matter the
Corporation, a new policy has to be taken
out. This point is settled in view of the
decision of the Supreme Court in Uttar
Pradesh
State
Road
Transport
Corporation v. Kulsum and others,
(2011) 8 SCC 142.

17. But, the issue that Mr. Anchal
Mishra has raised is not just about the
insurance policy issued in favour of the
owner, enuring to the benefit of the
Corporation, when the vehicle was placed
at the Corporation's disposal and the State
undertaking were operating it, under their
control, pursuant to an agreement for the
purpose. The issue is whether a route
permit
for
the
offending
vehicle,
authorizing the Corporation to ply it on the
route, where the accident occurred, was
necessary to produce in order to fasten
liability upon the Insurance Company.
Broadly speaking, there is a difference
between the liability of an Insurance
Company to indemnify a commercial
vehicle operating in a public place in that,
that while a private operator of a
commercial vehicle must hold a route
permit for a specific vehicle operating on a
specified route, under Section 66 of
Chapter VI of the Act, the State Road
Transport Corporation by virtue of Section
103(1-A) of the Act, as amended in its
application in Uttar Pradesh, can operate
any vehicle owned by them or placed at
their disposal on a route for which they
hold a route permit. The question was
examined in a number of decisions of this
Court. In F.A.F.O. No. 194 of 2011, The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kripa
Ram and ors., decided on 17.08.2017, it
was held by Mahendra Dayal, J:

"10. The plain reading of Section
103 of the Act clearly reveals that the
procedure for issuance of permit in favour
of U.P. S.R.T.C., is contained in it. Once an
independent provision for issuance of
permit as stipulated in Chapter-VI of the
Act has been made, no permit under
Section 66 of the Act would be necessary.

11. A perusal of Section 103 (1A)
also clearly reveals that the State Transport
undertaking is required to take permit only
in respect of a particular route. There is no
requirement that the vehicle number should
also find place in such permits. Once a
motor vehicle is operated by U.P.S.R.T.C.
7 All. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Radheyshayam & Ors.
545
it will, be fully covered under the
provisions of Chapter-VI of the Act. There
is no reason as to why the stipulation
incorporated in the Insurance Policy may
require satisfaction of permit issued under
Section 66 of the Act.

12. It has also been submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondent No.
3 that similar issue came for consideration
before this Court several times and the
controversy has been finally settled that the
permit required for U.P.S.R.T.C. buses,
does not require the registration number of
the buses to be mentioned therein.

13. The learned counsel for the
respondent No. 3 has referred to a
judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court rendered in FAFO No. 1090 of 2011,
decided on 23.7.2015. In this case also
similar question was raised and the
Division
Bench held
that
once
the
requirement for issuance of permit for
notified route or notified area has been
made, the argument of learned counsel for
the appellant that bus number must be
mentioned on the permit, cannot be
accepted. It was also held that no such
statutory
requirement
is
contemplated
either under the Act or under the Rules. A
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also had
an occasion to examine this aspect of the
matter in FAFO No. 462 of 2016 and
FAFO No. 504 of 2014. In both the cases
the Co-ordinate Bench came to the
conclusion that Section 103 of the Motor
Vehicles Act envisages the procedure of
issuance
of
permit
in
favour
of
U.P.S.R.T.C. The Honb'le Single Judge,
while deciding the appeals considered the
matter in detail and found that once a motor
vehicle
operated
by
U.P.S.R.T.C.
is
covered under Chapter VI of the Act, no
permit as provided under Section 66 of the
Act is required. It was also considered by
the Court that Rule 130 of the U.P. Motor
Vehicle
Rules
1998
prescribes
the
procedure for issuance of permit in favour
of U.P.S.R.T.C. The prescribed form for
obtaining permit is Form No. S.R. 46. This
form also clearly mentions the issuance of
permit under Section 103 of the Act. The
other vehicles which are operated privately
or issued permit in form S.R. 29 are
regulated by Section 66 of the Act."

18. The question again fell for
consideration before this Court in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., Barabanki v. Smt.
Mithlesh and others, 2017 (4) ADJ 111
(LB). In Smt. Mithlesh (supra), it was held:

"11. A plain reading of the
provisions extracted above, clearly shows
that Section 98 gives an overriding effect to
the provisions contained in Chapter VI of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 103
sub-section
(1)
contains
non-obstante
clause, therefore, any provision contained
in Chapter V inconsistent with the
provisions of Chapter VI of the Act would
have no application.

12. Insofar as the question of
issuance of permit is concerned, Section
103 (1) of the Act clearly envisages the
mechanism for issuance of permits in
favour of UPSRTC. Once an independent
provision for issuance of permits is
stipulated under the statute, to say that for
operating a vehicle by UPSRTC under
Section 103(1A) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, a permit under Section 66 of the
Act would be necessary, in my humble
consideration, such a proposition of law is
misconceived
and
does
not
deserve
acceptance. The rejection of contention is
further strengthened when we look at the
definition of owner as defined under
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section
2(30)
of
the
Act
quoted
hereinabove.

13. Section 103 was inserted by
U.P. Act No. 5 of 1993 w.e.f. 17.1.1993
and is applicable insofar as the present case
is concerned. Once a motor vehicle
operated by UPSRTC is fully covered
under the provisions of Chapter VI of the
Act, there is no reason as to why the
stipulation incorporated in the insurance
policy may require satisfaction of permit
issued under Section 66 of the Act for a
vehicle covered under the provisions of
Section 103 read with Section 103 (1A) of
the Act.

14. There is yet another reason as
to why meaning of stipulation in the
insurance policy be not confined and
interpreted within the ambit of Section 66.
The stipulation itself provides for a permit
issued under the provisions of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. The condition in the
insurance policy is wide enough to bring all
the types of permits conceived under the
Act within the cover of insurance policy, as
such, the question raised by the appellant
on the strength of Section 66 of the Act is
without any legal foundation. The plea
advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant was also considered in the light of
relevant Rules i.e. U.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998. Rule 130 of the above Rules
prescribes the procedure for issuance of
permits in favour of UPSRTC in Form SR46. Form SR-46 as is prescribed for the
vehicles operated by UPSRTC clearly
mentions the issuance of such a permit
under Section 103 of the Act, whereas, the
vehicles operated privately are to be issued
a permit in Form SR-29 which is regulated
under Section 66 of the Act. This is
however, not to suggest that a privately
operated vehicle may not have a permit
under Section 66 of the Act. It may be
fruitful to bear in mind that private
operators first of all purchase a vehicle
which is bound to have a permit and then
comes operation of a vehicle on the notified
route; but for a State Undertaking, a route
under a scheme comes into existence first
which follows by a permit and operation of
vehicle in terms of permit comes last.

15. Once the prescribed statutory
norms for the purposes of issuance of
permit stand at variance, there is no reason
as to why the permits issued under Chapter
V and Chapter VI of the Act may not be
treated to be satisfying the condition of
insurance policy placed reliance upon. The
two chapters being mutually exclusive
provide for distinct permits which have to
operate interdependently."

19. The same principle has been
endorsed by this Court in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko. v. Smt. Daya
Devi and others, 2017 (4) ADJ 778 (LB),
and again, in a much later decision in
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko. v.
Smt. Saroj and others, 2021 (6) ADJ 346
(LB).

20. Here, the learned Counsel for the
appellant-Insurance
Company
has
attempted to raise the further issue that the
Corporation were not impleaded as a party,
though they were necessary parties, and on
that account, the permit held by the
Corporation for the route on which the
offending vehicle was operated by them in
terms of the contract between the owner
and the Corporation could not be produced.
It is further urged that if the Corporation
were not impleaded, it was the duty of the
owner to have placed on record the permit
held by the Corporation to ply on the route,
where the accident occurred.
7 All. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Radheyshayam & Ors.
547

21. It must be recorded that there is no
plea raised on behalf of the appellantInsurance Company in their written statement
about non-joinder of the Corporation as a
necessary party to the proceeding. The plea
was raised on behalf of the Owner and the
Driver and Issue No. 4 about non-joinder of
the Corporation as a necessary party was
framed at their instance. However, at the
hearing, the said issue was not pressed and
none of the opposite parties to the claim
petition, including the appellant-Insurance
Company, pressed for a decision on the said
issue. Thus, so far as non-impleadment of the
Corporation is concerned, it does not appear
to be a case which the Insurance Company
are entitled to agitate now. So far as the
fundamental plea that the Corporation's
permit for the route, in any case, was required
to be brought on record, if not by the nonparty Corporation, by the claimants, who
seek compensation, it must be remarked that
the Corporation are an establishment of the
State, wholly owned and controlled by it.
There is a presumption of fact-quite
rebuttable about regularity attached to all
official actions, a principle embodied under
clause (e) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act,
1872. The provisions of Section 114(e) of the
Evidence Act are based on a salutary
principle, and assuming that the Evidence Act
does not apply proprio vigore to proceedings
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
the principle there based on time-tested
wisdom does certainly apply. There is no
reason why the Corporation would ply a
vehicle of theirs on a route, where they do not
hold permit. A copy of the agreement
between the authorized signatory on behalf of
the owner and the Regional Manager of the
Corporation for the Lucknow Region is on
record as paper No. 15ग. A perusal of Clause
29 of the said agreement, where the owner
has been described as the second party and
the State Road Transport Corporation as the
first party, reads:

"Permit of the undertaking Bus
will be in the name of First Party and the
fees spent to obtain the permit will be
borne by the First Party."

22. The offending vehicle was being
operated by the Corporation in terms of the
agreement dated 25.10.2000, which carries a
covenant that the Corporation would operate
on the basis of a permit taken out by them
and the expenses whereof the Corporation
would bear. Bearing in mind the principle
about regularity in official actions, it has to
be presumed that the Corporation were
operating on a route for which they held a
permit. The provisions of sub-Section (1-A)
of Section 103 show that the Corporation do
not require a permit for every vehicle that
they operate with its number mentioned on
the permit. They can detail any vehicle on
any route of theirs, including a vehicle that
has been leased out to them or which they
operate under an agreement from its owner.
The presumption, therefore, that arises
clearly is that the offending vehicle was
being operated on a route for which the
Corporation held a permit. The accident
occurred on that route. It was for the
appellant-Insurance Company, under the
circumstances, to prove by affirmative
evidence, that the Corporation did not have a
permit to operate on the route where the
accident occurred. The presumption about
regularity in official actions is rebuttable,
and this presumption too could be rebutted.
But, it was not. The appellant-Insurance
Company did not lead any evidence,
whatsoever, to show that on the date of
accident on the route, the offending vehicle
was plying, the Corporation did not hold a
valid permit to operate.
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. In the circumstances, there is no
force whatsoever in the contention that the
appellant-Insurance Company raise in this
appeal. No other point was pressed.

In re. : FAFO No. 33 of 2016

24. This appeal is again by the
Insurance Company and arises out of the
claim relating to the death of Smt.
Dhanpatti Devi, the other victim of the
accident, who was riding the bicycle along
with her son, Suresh Kumar @ Lallu on
22.10.2013. The other details and issues
need not be gone into as the relevant facts
and the issue, on the basis of which the
award here has been sought to be
impeached, are the same as those involved
in the leading appeal. No additional point
has been pressed in this appeal by Mr.
Anchal Mishra, learned Counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company.

25. In the result, both the appeals fail
and are dismissed with costs throughout.
The interim orders passed are hereby
vacated.
----------
(2022)07ILR A548
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 500 of 2002

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Tulsa & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Pramod Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri T.C. Seth, Sri P.K. Rai,Sri Prem
KumarSingh, Sri R.K. Dwivedi

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 145(c), 147, 147(1)(b)(i) &
149: - Appeal by Insurance Company -
challenging the Award - seeking relieve
itself from liability to pay compensation
- deceased travelling on the board of a
tractor trolley & died when tractortrolley was turned-turtle due to rash &
negligent driving on a public road when
same was proceeded to the cremation
ground in the funeral rites - tribunal
shrifted the objection as taken by the
insurance company that tractor was
insured only for agricultural purposes
not for passenger vehicle - Awarded of
Rs. 78,000/- with 9% interest - Court
held that, insurers cannot be held liable
at all under the policy to satisfy the
award or indemnify the owner - finding
recorded by tribunal is patently flawed -
impugned award set-aside
- appeal
succeed
-
compensation
shall
be
recovered from the owners - insurer
stand discharged from its liability. (Para -
7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17)

Appeal allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs Brij Mohan &
ors., (2007) 7 SCC 56

2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Asha Rani,
(2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493 : (2002)
8 Supreme 594

3. New India Assurance Co. Vs Satpal Singh,
(2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130

4. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Bommithi
Subbhayamma, (2005) 12 SCC 243

5. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tilak
Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 404 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri)
344

6. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Baljit Kaur,
(2004) 2 SCC 1 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 370