Jammu & Kashmir High CourtGouri Shanker vs Mohd. Iqbal & Ors on 10 August, 2021Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 J AND K 475Author:Tashi RabstanBench:Tashi Rabstan216\n\n\n                 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR\n                           AT JAMMU\n\n\n                                                       MA 534/2014\n\n\n\nGouri Shanker                                                .....Appellant(s)\n\n                         Through: Mr. Jatinder Singh, Adv.\n\n                Versus\n\nMohd. Iqbal & ors.                                       ..... Respondent(s)\n                         Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dhar, Adv., for No.3.\n\n\n\n     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE\n\n\n                                JUDGMENT1.     This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.06.2014\n\ndelivered by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu in\n\nClaim No.24/2012, whereby the claimant-Gouri Shanker has been held entitled\n\nto receive compensation for an amount of Rs.3,19,000/- along with pendentelite\n\nand future interest @ 7.5% per annum except on the amount of loss of future\n\nincome from the owner payable by insurance company with right to recover the\n\nsame from the owner-insured.2.     The facts as borne out from the record are that a Tipper bearing No.JK11-\n\n4837, while being driven rashly and negligently, hit the appellant-claimant on\n\n25.03.2011 at about 10.30 AM at Yard No.6, Narwal, Jammu, as a result of\n\nwhich received injuries and his left leg got fractured. Firstly, he remained2          MA 534/2014admitted in Bee Enn Charitable Hospital, Jammu and thereafter he was operated\n\nupon in a hospital at Amritsar (Punjab). The petitioner as per the disability\n\ncertificate issued by the Board of Doctors suffered a permanent disability of\n\n30% which when compared to whole body shall be reduced by 50%.3.    Appellant-Gouri Shanker filed a claim petition before the learned\n\nTribunal and the learned Tribunal passed the award dated 13.06.2014 holding\n\nthe appellant entitled to receive compensation for an amount of Rs.3,19,000/-\n\nalong with pendentelite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum except on the\n\namount of loss of future income from the owner payable by insurance company\n\nwith right to recover the same from the owner-insured. Being not satisfied the\n\nappellant has filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the award.4.    Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, examined the pleadings,\n\ndocuments and perused the record of learned Tribunal.5.    Admittedly, the appellant received injuries in a motor vehicular accident\n\ninvolving the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by its driver\n\non 25.03.2011. It has also not been disputed that the appellant was operated\n\nupon in a hospital at Amritsar. Further, the record shows that the appellant\n\nvisited the hospital at Amritsar on different occasions between 26.03.2011 to\n\n17.10.2011. Since the appellant was operated upon in a hospital at Amritsar and\n\nthereafter visited Amritsar on several occasions for follow-up checkup, an\n\nattendant must have remained there with the appellant on all these occasions.\n\nHowever, the award shows that the amount on these counts have not been\n\nawarded in favour of appellant. Therefore, I deem it proper to modify the award3          MA 534/2014and held that besides the awarded amount, the appellant shall also be entitled to\n\nan amount of Rs.20,000/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 7.5% per\n\nannum being the amount incurred on transportation charges as well as the\n\nexpenses incurred on the attendant.6.    Before the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company took the plea that the\n\noffending vehicle was being plied without a valid route permit. Learned\n\nTribunal was of the view that the route permit of offending vehicle had expired\n\non 18.01.2011, thereafter was renewed on 16.06.2011 having its validity upto\n\n18.01.2012. Since the accident had occurred on 25.03.2011 and the validity of\n\nroute permit had already expired on 18.01.2011, as such the Tribunal fastened\n\nthe liability to pay the awarded amount on the owner/insured of offending\n\nvehicle. Vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal directed the insurance\n\ncompany to pay the awarded amount with right to recover the same from the\n\nowner-insured.7.    Now the question arises for consideration is: whether the owner/insured\n\ncan be held liable for payment of compensation?8.    Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce hereundersection 81(5)of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:"81. Duration and renewal of permits. - (1)....(4)\n            (5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after\n      the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from\n      the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary\n      permit has been granted under clause (d) ofsection 87, and where a\n      temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such\n      temporary permit shall be refunded."4          MA 534/20149.    Admittedly, the offending vehicle caused the accident on 25.03.2011 at\n\nYard No.6, Narwal, Jammu and the route permit was valid for all J&K roads.\n\nThe validity of route permit expired on 18.01.2011, whereas it came to be\n\nrenewed on 16.06.2011 upto 18.01.2012; meaning thereby the route permit came\n\nto be renewed for a period of one year upto 18.01.2012, thus the renewal of\n\nroute permit was having retrospective effect. Further, as perSection 81(5)of\n\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, where a route permit is renewed after the expiry of\n\nperiod thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry.10.   Further, even if it is presumed that what was pleaded by appellant-\n\nInsurance Company before the learned Tribunal was correct, still it cannot avoid\n\nthe liability to pay the amount of compensation to the injured, as the defences\n\navailable to it underSection 149(2)of the Act are very limited. Non-renewal of\n\nRoute Permit is not the defence available to the Insurance Company to avoid\n\nliability to compensate the third party. Further, enactment ofMotor Vehicles Actis welfare legislation with an objective to give financial aid to the victims of\n\nmotor vehicular accidents and also to the persons who are deprived of their\n\nphysical capabilities because of such accidents. This legislation aids such\n\nvictims or their dependants to lead a respectable life. Thus, the interpretation of\n\nvarious sections ofMotor Vehicles Actshall be towards the fulfillment of these\n\nobjectives and not to block the compensation on non-sustainable grounds.11.   The case before this Court is not a case where there was no Route Permit\n\nat all, therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle was being plied without a route\n\npermit.5          MA 534/201412.       Thus, the learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that since at the time of\n\n              accident, the offending vehicle had no valid route permit, which came to be\n\n              renewed on 16.06.2011, as such the owner/insured was liable to pay the awarded\n\n              amount of compensation.13.       In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award merits to be\n\n              modified. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and it is held that\n\n              besides the awarded amount, the appellant shall also be entitled to an amount of\n\n              Rs.20,000/- being the amount incurred on transportation charges as well as the\n\n              expenses incurred on the attendant. Thus, in all the appellant shall be entitled to\n\n              receive compensation for an amount of Rs.3,39,000/- along with pendentelite\n\n              and future interest @ 7.5% per annum except on the amount of loss of future\n\n              income from the insurance company. Let the awarded amount be released in\n\n              favour of appellant after proper verification and identification in terms of the\n\n              conditions, if any, as contained in the impugned award.14.       Registry to send down the record of learned Tribunal along with a copy of\n\n              this judgment.15.       Disposed of along with connected MA(s), if any.Jammu:                                                      (Tashi Rabstan)\n                 .08.2021                                                     Judge\n              (Anil Sanhotra)ANIL SANHOTRA2021.08.10 16:46I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document