01Facts
On 11 December 2021, 12-year-old Onisha Sonkar died in a motor accident.
¶ 7The Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, awarded the claimants ₹5,70,000 and fastened liability on the insurer by award dated 29 January 2024.
¶ 7The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the offending vehicle’s permit lacked the required authorization and that the insurer should therefore be exonerated.
¶ 8–9, 12The High Court condoned the 24-day delay, admitted the appeal, and heard it finally with the parties’ consent.
¶ 2–602Issues
i.1. Whether separate authorization was required to operate the offending vehicle within Chhattisgarh, where it was registered and the accident occurred.
¶ 10, 12–13ii.2. Whether the alleged absence of that authorization constituted a breach of the insurance policy sufficient to relieve the insurer of liability.
¶ 12–1403Law Applied
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.
¶ 7Relying on Shri Binod Kumar Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd., SLP (Civil) No. 13060 of 2020, the Court applied the principle that authorization fees under a National Permit are required when a vehicle travels outside the State in which the permit was issued; separate authorization is not required for use within that State.
¶ 12The Court treated the absence of such authorization as insufficient, in these circumstances, to establish a breach absolving the insurer of liability.
¶ 13Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The vehicle was registered with the Transport Authority at Jashpur, and both its operation and the accident occurred within Chhattisgarh.
¶ 13Applying Binod Kumar Singh, the Court held that separate authorization was not required for the vehicle’s operation within the State.
¶ 13Accordingly, the alleged absence of authorization did not establish a policy breach that would exonerate the insurer, and the Tribunal’s finding fastening liability on the insurer disclosed no infirmity.
¶ 12–1405Holding
The Court answered the issues against the insurer, holding that the alleged absence of separate authorization did not absolve it of liability to indemnify the insured.
¶ 13–14The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Tribunal’s award undisturbed.
¶ 14Original Court PDF
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,vsSMT. MALTI SONKAR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
