An insurer cannot avoid liability for a permit breach without proving it existed on the accident date.

On 10 May 2021, Madho Prasad Sahu died after a milk truck allegedly struck his motorcycle.

His dependants brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Claims Tribunal awarded ₹9,66,000 and held the insurer liable, finding no breach of policy conditions.

The insurer appealed under Section 173, arguing that the truck lacked a valid permit on the accident date.

Whether the insurer proved that the offending vehicle lacked a valid permit on the accident date, constituting a breach of policy conditions.

Whether the insurer was entitled to be exonerated from liability on that basis.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal, while Section 166 provides the basis for a claim for compensation.

The Court stated that the primary onus of proving a breach of policy conditions rests on the insurer.

Rules 86 and 87(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 concern authorisation for national permits and its duration and territorial effectiveness.

The judgment cited no precedent.

The insurer’s RTO witness explained the permit requirements but did not testify that the relevant RTO had issued no permit for the truck on the accident date.

In cross-examination, the witness also acknowledged COVID-period permit exemptions, and the insurer produced no evidence establishing that those exemptions did not apply on 10 May 2021.

Given the evidentiary gap, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that a policy breach had not been proved; the fact that the truck was being used to distribute milk was also noted.

It dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit, leaving the Tribunal’s award undisturbed.