Vehicle travelling empty for repair exempt from permit requirement only if specifically pleaded and factually substantiated.

On November 10, 2008, the respondent/claimant was hit by a bus (Reg. No. UP15-AT-1314) driven rashly while he was on his motorcycle near Bahadarabad

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Roorkee, awarded the claimant Rs. 3,31,703/- and directed the National Insurance Company to pay the amount but granted them "pay and recover" rights from the bus owner (appellant) and driver

The Tribunal found that the bus, a school bus permitted only 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 repairs, thus exempt from permit requirements

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 permit requirements under Section 66(3)(p) of the Motor Vehicles Act because it was proceeding for repairs

Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates permits for the use of transport vehicles in any public place

Section 66(3)(p), which provides an exception to the permit requirement for transport vehicles proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of repair

The principle of "pay and recover" as established under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the insurer's liability in cases of policy condition violations.

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the vehicle was exempt under Section 66(3)(p). Firstly, the Court noted that the plea regarding "traveling for repairs" was never raised in the original written objections before the Tribunal and appeared to be an afterthought or "developed story"

Secondly, the Court found it implausible that a school bus from Meerut would travel 150 km to Haridwar solely for a battery repair, especially when the vehicle's permit was strictly restricted to Meerut city

Using findings from a related appeal (A.O. No. 335 of 2012) arising from the same accident, the Court concluded that the presence of the vehicle in Uttarakhand constituted a fundamental breach of the permit conditions

Consequently, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner but was rightly directed to satisfy the award first and then recover the amount from the owner/driver.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s judgment. The order directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,31,703/- to the claimant with the right to recover the same from the appellant and driver was affirmed