Vehicles under 3000kg require no permit; charge sheet alone cannot prove lack of valid fitness certificate.

The deceased, Lokesh Dhiwar, died in a road accident involving a pickup vehicle (No. CG-13, L-2308)

The Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 654/2017, awarded the claimants Rs. 9,27,200/-

The claimants filed MAC No. 977/2019 seeking enhancement of the compensation

Simultaneously, the insurance company filed MAC No. 1188/2019 challenging its liability, asserting that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and that the offending vehicle lacked a valid permit and fitness certificate

1. Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, thereby exempting the insurer from liability

2. Whether the offending vehicle required a valid permit under the statutory exemptions of the Motor Vehicles Act

3. Whether the mere filing of a charge sheet by the police is sufficient evidence to prove the absence of a valid fitness certificate

4. Whether the income of the deceased was correctly assessed by the Tribunal for calculating compensation

The Court applied Section 66(3)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which stipulates that a permit is not required for a transport vehicle if its unladen weight does not exceed 3000 kg

Regarding the burden of proof, the Court held that the insurance company must provide "clinching evidence" to establish a breach of policy conditions, and a police final report (charge sheet) does not per se constitute such proof

For the assessment of quantum, the Court relied on the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Labour Commissioner to determine the deceased's monthly income

The Court found that the insurer failed to prove the deceased was a gratuitous passenger; witness testimony (AW-2) established that the deceased was a pedestrian hit after de-boarding a bus, a fact not controverted by the insurer

On the permit issue, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that because the vehicle's unladen weight was 2750 kg, it was legally exempt from permit requirements under Section 66(3)(i)

Regarding the fitness certificate, the Court ruled that the insurer could not rely solely on the existence of a charge sheet under Sections 56/192 and 66/192 of the MV Act to prove a policy breach without independent evidence

Finally, addressing quantum, the Court determined that the Tribunal’s assessment of income (Rs. 6,000/- per month) was inadequate and adjusted it to Rs. 7,930/- per month based on minimum wage standards

The Court then re-calculated the total compensation by adding 40% for future prospects and applying a multiplier of 18

The Court held the insurer liable and enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 9,27,200/- to Rs. 12,49,016/-

The respondents were directed to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 3,21,816/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application until realization