Vehicle operated outside permit limits without specific pleading of repair exception constitutes bridge of policy conditions.

On November 10, 2008, the claimant (Respondent No. 1) was hit from behind by a bus (Registration No. UP15-AT 1314) at a petrol pump while riding a motorcycle

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 3,00,871 to the claimant, directing the National Insurance Company (Respondent No. 2) to pay the amount and subsequently recover it from the bus owner (Appellant) and the driver (Respondent No. 3)

The Tribunal found that the bus, a school bus registered for Meerut city, was operating in Uttarakhand without a valid permit at the time of the accident

The Appellant challenged this, claiming the bus was empty and traveling to Haridwar for battery repairs, thus exempt from permit requirements under Section 66(3)(p) of the Motor Vehicles Act

1. Whether the vehicle was being operated in violation of the terms of the permit and insurance policy at the time of the accident

2. Whether the transport vehicle was exempt from the necessity of a permit under Section 66(3)(p) of the Act because it was proceeding for repairs

The Court applied Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates that no owner of a transport vehicle shall use the vehicle in any public place without a valid permit

Specifically, sub-section (3)(p) provides an exemption to the permit requirement for transport vehicles while "proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of repair"

The Court also upheld the "pay and recover" principle, wherein the insurer remains liable to the third party but is entitled to seek reimbursement from the insured if a policy condition (such as a permit violation) is breached

The Court rejected the Appellant’s defense that the bus was traveling 150 km from Meerut to Haridwar solely for battery repairs, noting that this specific plea was an afterthought, as it was not mentioned in the original objections filed before the Tribunal

The Court found the explanation factually implausible, questioning why a driver would travel such a significant distance for a routine battery repair

The Tribunal's extensive discussion (paragraphs 28-32 of the original award) regarding the bus being a school bus restricted to Meerut city was upheld

Consequently, the Court determined that the vehicle was being operated in the State of Uttarakhand without a valid permit, constituting a fundamental breach of the insurance policy conditions

The Court affirmed the Tribunal's judgment and award dated 16.05.2012, confirming the Insurance Company’s right to recover the compensation from the Appellant, and dismissed the appeal