Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd vs Vinod Yadav & Ors

$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 10 July 2026

+ MAC.APP. 824/2019 & CM APPL. 45678/2019
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Brijesh Bagga, Ms. Mouli
Sharma, Advocates.

versus

VINOD YADAV & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Khan, Advocate for R-6
& R-7.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking
recovery rights against respondent no.6/driver and respondent no.7/owner
which were denied by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘ MACT / Tribunal’ ) in MACT No. 4434/2016 by way
st
of impugned award dated 01 June 2019 awarding Rs. 9,10,000/- along
with 9% interest.
th
2. The accident occurred on 16 June 2009 when one, Satish
(hereinafter, ‘ deceased ’) was travelling on his motorcycle and proceeding
towards Center 18, Jail Road when he was hit by a TATA-709 bearing
registration no. DL-1-LB-2991 (hereinafter, ‘ offending vehicle ’) driven by
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 824/2019 & CM APPL. 45678/2019 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:58:43

respondent no.6, owned by respondent no.7 and insured with appellant.
Deceased was taken to BJRM Hospital , however, he succumbed to his
injuries the next day. While, appellant/Insurance Company claimed that
there was no valid permit on the date of accident, which amounted to a
fundamental breach of insurance policy and therefore, recovery rights
ought to have been granted to them, MACT rejected their contention and
affixed liability on them to satisfy the impugned award.
3. Mr. Brijesh Bagga, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, points
to paragraph 12 of the impugned award, where the statement of counsel for
respondent no. 6/driver and respondent no.7/owner ( respondent no. 1 & 2
before the MACT ) has been noted. It was recorded by MACT that, “ it is
admitted by the learned counsel for respondent no.1 that the permit was not
valid but simultaneously it is argued that the vehicle was not plied by the
respondent no.1 for the purpose of carrying goods, rather he was going to
his house. ” On this basis, Mr. Bagga submits that the question of re-
addressing this issue, at the stage of appeal, does not arise. Further, he also
challenges the finding of MACT, wherein it was held that plying the
offending vehicle/truck even for personal use does not amount to
commercial use.
4. For this, reliance is placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in
Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors. (2018)
7 SCC 558. In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with a case, where there
was no permit for the vehicle and at the time of accident, the vehicle was
coming out of a workshop when it met with an accident. The Supreme
Court reached a conclusion that exceptions carved out under Section 66 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( ‘ MV Act’ ) are to be pleaded and proved and
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 824/2019 & CM APPL. 45678/2019 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:58:43

cannot be taken aid of in case of an argument seeking absolution from
liability. Supreme Court further stated that “ use of a vehicle in a public
place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction ”.
5. Further, Mr. Brijesh Bagga , counsel for appellant/Insurance
Company, vehemently argued that there is nothing on record to state that
the period of renewal started from May 2009.
6. Mr. Sameer Khan , counsel for respondent no.6/driver & respondent
no. 7/owner, counters this by stating that a concession of the counsel cannot
possibly work against a statutory protection governed under Section 81(5)
of the MV Act. Though, it was admitted that on the date of accident, there
was no valid permit, Mr. Khan , draws attention of this Court to the
testimony of R1W1 , officer from the Permit Department and the documents
filed as Ex . R1W1/R3 , which was the permit transaction details ( a computer
printout of the same ). The said document showed that the permits were
renewed yearly from 1996 onwards, till it was surrendered in 2003 and,
st
thereafter, in 21 May 2004, a fresh permit entry was given for a period of
th
5 years and yet again renewed on 11 August 2009.
7. Mr. Khan , stated that they had applied for renewal of permit in July
2009 and, thereafter, the permit was granted in August 2009. He placed
reliance on the provision of Section 81(5) of MV Act which reads as under:
“ 81. Duration and renewal of permits
(5) Where a permit has been renewed under this
section after the expiry of the period thereof, such
renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry
irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has
been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and where
a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 824/2019 & CM APPL. 45678/2019 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:58:43

respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded.”
(emphasis added)

He, therefore, contends that the renewal of permit granted in August 2009
would have effect from its expiry in May 2009, when the permit granted in
May 2004 for 5 years stood expired.
8. He further relies upon the decision of High Court of Karnataka in Dr.
Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Education Trust v. Banu Begum & Ors. ,
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. (‘ MFA ’) 202022/2016, where the Court
was considering a similar situation and analysed the provisions of Section
81 of the MV Act in some detail. The High Court arrived at the conclusion
that the permit was in force on the date of accident and the renewal would
be validated from date of expiry. The High Court relied upon the decision
of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Smt. Yasmin Begum & Ors. , MFA 3338/2015, wherein, the Court held as
under:
“ 23. On a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it
becomes clear when the permit is issued, in the first
instance, it is effective from the date of issuance for a
period of five years. But subsequently when a permit
which has expired is renewed, it is from the date of
expiry. Having regard to Sub-sections (2) and (3) of
Section 81 of the Act, where there could be a delay in
making of an application for renewal of permit and
also keeping in mind the fact that renewal application
would take sometime for it to be considered, processed
and ultimately the permit being renewed even though
such an application has been made well within time.
Sub-section (5) of Section 81 of the Act takes care of a
period during which the vehicle is plying on the public
road, pending renewal of the permit. In such a case,
Sub-section (5) of Section 81 of the Act states that
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 824/2019 & CM APPL. 45678/2019 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:58:43

where a permit is renewed after the expiry of its
period, such renewal shall have an effect from the date
of such expiry. In other words, Sub-section (5) of
Section 81 of the Act deals with a case of deemed
permit or takes care of a situation where pending
renewal of a permit, a transport vehicle is plying on a
public road. In such a situation, it cannot be
considered to be a case where the transport vehicle is
plying without a permit rather the vehicle is plying
pending renewal of the permit i.e. on a deemed permit.
Renewal of the permit could take place only if a permit
had been issued in the first instance and not otherwise.
Hence, the object of a provision incorporating a legal
fiction must be given its fullest scope and application. ”
(emphasis added)
9. The High Court of Karnataka in Yasmin Begum ( supra ) had
distinguished the decision in Amrit Paul Singh ( supra ) on account that, in
that case, the offending vehicle did not have a permit at all.
10. Taking into account these submissions, the Court is of the opinion
that Section 81(5) of MV Act does provide a deeming fiction for a permit
renewal to be valid from the date of expiry of the previous permit. There is
no doubt that renewal of the permit was applied for in July 2009 albeit after
the accident, but that does not take away the fact that renewal obtained in
August 2009 will operate from May 2009 onwards, which was when the
previous permit expired.
11. There is no caveat in the statute that the reasons for delay have to be
considered. On the contrary, Section 81(3) of the MV Act provides that
application for renewal can be filed even after the expiry of permit and
states as under:
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 824/2019 & CM APPL. 45678/2019 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:58:43

“(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the
State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may
entertain an application for the renewal of a permit
after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is
satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and
sufficient cause from making an application within the
time specified.”
(emphasis added)
12. Therefore, the question as to for what reason was there delay in
applying for a permit or whether the driver/owner became wiser after the
accident and applied for the permit subsequently, may not be relevant for
the purposes of considering whether the permit was valid on the date of the
accident or not. Admission by counsel for respondent no.6/driver and
respondent no.7/owner, as recorded in the impugned order, cannot dilute,
erode or extinguish the right of the driver/owner to plead the benefit of the
statutory provision.
13. In the opinion of this Court, since the permit was valid on the date of
accident by virtue of the subsequent renewal, the question of whether
vehicle was being plied for personal use or commercial use may also not be
relevant for our discussion.
14. As regards the objection raised by Mr. Bagga , regarding starting of
the date of renewal of permit not being known from records, this Court has
perused the testimony of R1W1 , where it was noted that the records had
been weeded out. Therefore, there will be no purpose in trying to elicit
further evidence in this regard. No doubt, in a particular case, where
renewal is sought after a less proximate date and much later, for instance, 3
months, 6 months or 1 year later, there could have been an issue, as to
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 824/2019 & CM APPL. 45678/2019 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:58:43

when the renewal applies from, theoretically. However, that is not case
here.

15. Accordingly, in view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed.
16. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
17. Statutory deposit be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company, only
if the order of deposit has been complied with.
18. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.


(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
JULY 10, 2026/ ak/ sp
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 824/2019 & CM APPL. 45678/2019 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:58:43