Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.78 seconds)Section 207 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Mahender Singh vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 10 May, 2012
7. As far as driving of TSR only by the permit holder being a
condition of the permit is concerned, the violation of terms and conditions
of the permit not always amounting to violation of Section 149(2)(i)(c) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This issue was dealt with at great length
by me in Mahender Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited &
Others MAC App.430/2010 decided on 10.05.2012. Paras 7 to 10 of the
said judgment are extracted hereunder:
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Sohan Lal Passi vs P. Sesh Reddy & Ors on 17 July, 1996
13. As far as the liability to pay the compensation even in case of
conscious and willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy is concerned, it is well settled as per the decision of Sohan Lal
Passi vs. P.Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC 21.
State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Nanded Parbhani Z.L.B.M.V., Operator ... on 21 January, 2000
8. The interpretation of contravention of condition of
permit envisaged under Section 66 of the Act and the
contravention of condition of permit with respect to the
purpose for which the vehicle may be used came up for
MAC APP282-283/2007 Page 3 of 9
consideration before the Supreme Court in State of
Maharastra and Ors. v. Nanded-Parebhani Z.L.B.M.V.
Operator Sangh (2000) 2 SCC 69 albeit in a different
context. In the said case, the police had seized certain
vehicles for carrying passengers in excess of the numbers
permitted by the condition of permit issued by the
Transport Authority. The action was challenged by the
Association of Transporters by virtue of a writ petition
before the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court. The
High Court analyzed the different provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder and
on consideration of the same came to the conclusion that
it is not each and every violation of the condition of the
permit which would authorize the seizure and detention of
the vehicle under Section 207 (1) of the Act. It was held
that it was only when the condition of permit relating to
the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for
which the vehicle was used, is violated, the vehicle could
be seized by the Authorities. The Appeal filed by the State
of Maharastra was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The
contention raised on behalf of the State of Maharastra
that carrying passengers more than prescribed by the
permit could be construed to be violation, was rejected.
1