Absence of permanent registration is not a valid defense if not pleaded and proved by the insurer.

The appellant, United India Insurance Company Limited, challenged the award dated February 3, 2020, passed by the 1st Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod.

In Claim Case No. 88/2019, the Tribunal awarded ₹15,82,000/- to the claimants (respondents No. 1 to 6) following a motor accident involving a vehicle driven by respondent No. 7 and owned by respondent No. 8.

The Tribunal fastened the liability for payment of compensation solely upon the appellant-Insurance Company.

The appellant filed the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on two primary grounds: lack of proven negligence by the driver and the absence of a permanent registration certificate for the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.

1. Whether the claimants successfully established negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle (Respondent No. 7).

2. Whether the Insurance Company can be absolved of liability on the ground that the offending vehicle lacked a permanent registration certificate at the time of the accident.

The Court primarily applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals against awards from Motor Accident Claims Tribunals.

The court relied on the principle of Tort Law that the burden of proving rash and negligent driving lies with the claimants, but once a finding of fact is recorded by a lower tribunal based on oral and documentary evidence, it will not be disturbed unless perverse.

Regarding the violation of policy conditions (specifically the lack of permanent registration), the court applied the evidentiary rule that the insurer must specifically plead and strictly prove any such breach of terms to escape liability.

Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the Claims Tribunal had appropriately appreciated both oral and documentary evidence to conclude that respondent No. 7 was driving rashly and negligently; this finding was deemed a "correct finding of fact" that was neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

On the second issue, while the Insurance Company contended that the vehicle lacked permanent registration, the Court observed that the appellant had failed to take a specific plea in this regard during the trial and had led no evidence to establish this fact.

Consequently, the Court found no merit in the insurer's attempt to deny liability based on an unproven technicality.

Regarding the second issue, it held that the insurer failed to prove the lack of registration.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Tribunal’s award of ₹15,82,000/-.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.