Allahabad High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Jantual & 5 Others on 15 February, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 18 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 236 of 2013 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Lucknow, Thru. Its Manager Respondent :- Smt. Jantual & 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- B.C. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Akhter Abbas,M S Pawar and Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 237 of 2013 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Lucknow, Thru. Its Manager Respondent :- Mohd. Yunus & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- B.C. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Akhter Abbas,Mahendra Singh Pawar and Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1018 of 2013 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Throu Its Manager Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow Thru M.D. Terikothi Lucknow & Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- B.C.Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Akhter Abbas,Alka Verma,Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Ravindra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Heard Sri B.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akhter Abbas, learned counsel for UPSRTC at length.
The dispute in the instant appeals has arisen between the insurer and UPSRTC on a limited ground i.e. lack of a permit under Section-66 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as prescribed in the Insurance Policy; violation whereof ought to shift the liability upon the State Undertaking is the precise grievance raised by the appellant.
Undisputedly, the policy issued to UPSRTC as placed reliance upon by the appellant (insurer) stipulates a condition of having permit issued under Section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is on this premise that the appellant has argued violation of insurance policy by way of a statutory defence against its liability but permit issued under Section 103 of the Act is duly possessed by UPSRTC..
Sri Akhter Abbas, learned counsel for the respondent disputing the contention raised by the appellant has invited attention of this court to the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it is pointed out that Section-66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is applicable insofar as the private vehicles are concerned and the said provision is not applicable to the vehicles plied by State Road Transport Corporation for the purposes of incorporation of any such condition.
Learned counsel has further pointed out that the Act maintains a distinction between the permits issued to the private vehicles and the vehicles of State Undertakings. The permits issued to the State Undertakings are regulated under Chapter-VI, whereas, the permits issued to the private transport vehicles are regulated under Chapter-V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section-66 is contained in Chapter-V of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, as such the very condition incorporated in the policy by virtue of the scheme of the Act not being applicable to the vehicle owned by UPSRTC, can not thus be invoked so as to claim the benefit of violation of policy as has been argued by the appellant.
The statutory provisions contained in Chapter-V and Chapter-VI of the Motor Vehicles Act maintain a clear distinction between the two categories of vehicles; one plied by the private owners and the other by State Undertakings. Undisputedly the vehicle in question belongs to UPSRTC and was insured by the appellants, hence permit on a notified route under Section-66 not being a requirement under law could be incorporated in the policy issued to the State Undertaking. The statutory rules also prescribe separate forms insofar as the two categories of permits are concerned.
The provisions of Section-66 not being applicable to the vehicles owned by State Road Transport Corporation, therefore, violation of such a clause will not amount to statutory violation of the policy, hence the contention fails. As a matter of fact, the very incorporation of such a clause in the policy is inapplicable, insofar as the vehicles plied by UPSRTC under the respective permits obtained on notified routes are concerned. A condition of permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can only be insisted on but the defence urged by the insurer limited to Section-66 alone, in the opinion of this court and on due consideration of the relevant provisions, is misconceived.
No other point was urged before this court.
The appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.2.2017/Shahnaz